Skip to main content

Full text of "The journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland"

See other formats





Series Seven. Vol. Seven 


30 June 1937 

Part I 



The Rev. K. R. Brady, C.C., Member — The Brief for the Defence at the Trial 
of John and Henrv Sheares in 1798 . 

Ada K. Long field, Mem ^ — TTistory o1 the Irish Linen and Cotton Printing 
■ Industry in the 1 8th Cen tury [Illustrated) .... 

Henry Morris, Member — The Partholon Legend [Illustrated) 

Edmund Curtis, Fellow — Some Further Medieval Seals out of the Ormond 
Archives, including that of Donal Reagh MacMurrough Kavanagh, King 
of Leinster [Illustrated) • • • • • • ^ • 

Eamonn 0 Tuathail — Notes on some Irish Place Names 



2 (> 




O. Davies — Excavations at Ballyrenan, Co. Tyrone [Illustrated) • • 89 

Dermot F. Gleeson, Member — The Silver Mines of Ormond • • 101 

Miscellanea — The Ballylongford Crucifix [Illustrated) — Excavations in Co. 

Tyrone — Observations on Kilgreany Cave, Co. Waterford — Clonmel 
Antiquities — Three-ringed Fort at Clonacody, Co. Tipperary — Find of 
Skulls in Goldenfort, Co. Wicklow — Sheela-na-gig at Kilmacomma, Co. 
Waterford — Sheela-na-gig, Clenagh Castle, Co. Clare — Coin Hoard in Co. 

Clare — The Circuit of Muirchertach — Hanging Bowls [Illustrated ) — 
Gallans at Barryshall, Co. Cork [Illustrated) — Easter Cycles in the Irish 

Church — Togail Bruidne da Derga . . • • -117 

Notices of Books • • • • • • • -133 

Proceedings and Report of Council ..... 142 

Statement of Accounts • • • • • • • • 154 



All Rights Reserved] 

Price 10/6 net 


: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 

(Formerly the Kilkenny Archaeological Association, and the Royal Historical 
and Archaeological Association of Ireland) 


List of the Volumes of the Journal, showing the relation between 
the Consecutive Numbers and the Numbers of each of the Six Series ; 
also the Years for which each Volume was issued. 

Consecutive Number 

Number of Series 

1 Y EA RS 


1 . 

1849, 1850, 1851. 


II. . . 

1852, 1853. 1 



1854, 1855. 


I. 2nd Series, 

1856, 1857. j 



1 1858, 1859. 1 



1860, 1861. i 



1862, 1863. ! 



1864, 1865, 1866. | 



1 867. 1 


I. 3rd Series, 

1868, 1869. 


I. 4th Series, 

1870, 1871. 


11 . 

1872, 1873. 



1874, 1875. 



1876, 1877, 1878. ' 



1879, 1880, 1881, 1882. 



1883, 1884. ! 



1885, 1886. 



1887, 1888. : 








I. 5th Series, 

1890 1891. 


11 . 

1892. i 












1896 I 









i 899. 



1 900. 



1901. 1 

















XVII. ' 









XX. „ . , 



I. 6th Series, 




1912. ! 













XLV 1 1. 







IX .. i 



X. . 1 

























i 1928. 



; 1929. 



! 1930. 


I. 7tli Series, 
















! 1936. 

\79'B CoLLECTlQ^J 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2015 


Photo. bu\ 

f Chancellor 

Koin MacNeill, D.Litt., M.R.I.A. 
President, 1987 . 









Communicated by the Rev. K. R. Brady, C.C., Member. 

Prefatory Note. 

The trial of the Brothers Sheares for High Treason in 1798 is well 
known, both from the interest attaching to the case from the position 
of the two brothers, and from the speech of John P. Curran for the 
defence. In Thomas Davis’s edition of Cm*ran’s speeches, published 
in 1845, at page 399, the brief for the defence is mentioned and three 
short extracts from it quoted. This brief is still in existence and I have 
been enabled to make a copy of it. It is of so much interest both as 
a human document and as throwing some further light on points of 
the case itself that it deserves to be published in full. 

The brief is in two parts : the back is torn off the first part, but 
the endorsement on the other reads : — 

Special Commission 12th July, 1798 

The King a. Additional Brief on behalf 

Henry Sheares and John Sheares Esqrs. of the Prisoners 

For Geo. Ponsonby Esqre. 
with you J. P. Curran 

Wm C. Plunket 
Leond. MacNally 

A. FitzGerald 

Davis tells us that the whole brief was written down by an apprentice 
of Mr. A. Fitzgerald’s, from John Sheares’ dictation, and it is clear 

XLVn . A 


from it, as Davis points out, that John Sheares intended to save hi& 
brother Henry’s life at his own expense. In this he failed, largely 
because of the unfair manner in which the case was presented by the 
prosecution : on the evidence Henry Sheares should have been 

acquitted. In reading the case, which is set out at length in Madden’s 
Lives of the United Irishmen, one wonders why the Counsel for the 
prisoners actually requested to have the two brothers tried together,, 
when the Crown was about to go on with the trial of Henry separately. 
I think the brief explains this : it seems very likely that the prisoners’ 
Counsel, on the instructions they had, believed the case against Henry 
to be so weak that he would be acquitted in any case, and they may 
have thought that on a joint trial there was a chance of getting John 
off also. 

The place called “ Lehaunstown camp ” was in the townland of 
that name, now written Laughanstovm on the Ordnance maps, between 
Cabinteely and Rathmichael. 

The “ Mr. Nelson ” referred to on page 17 was Samuel Neilson, the 
friend of Lord Edward Fitzgerald ; the letter which John Sheares 
wrote to him is given in full in Madden’s United Irishmen. 

In a few places the folding of the brief has resulted in the paper 
being rubbed, so that some words have become illegible. This has 
been noted each place it occurs. 

Words placed in square brackets, thus [use it], have been struck 
out with the pen in the original MS. 

The King 


Henry Sheares and 
John Sheares Esq^®- 

Special Commission of Oyer and Terminer. 
4th July 1798. 

Brief on behalf of the Prisoners. 

Overt Acts in Indictment. 

Abstracts of First Count and Overt Acts in Indictment (if 
wanting the Indictment at large is in Court). 

First Count — Compassing Imaginmg and intending the Kings 

First Overt Act — Assembled, consulted and conspired to raise 
and levy War within the Kingdom against the King 
and to procure Men and Arms for that purpose. 

2d Assembled and conspired to Dethrone the King. 

3d Assembled consulted and agreed to overturn the Govern- 
ment and change the constitution. 

4th Consulted and agreed upon the means of levying War 
and Rebellion. 

5th Consulted and agreed on the means of levying War to 
Dethrone the King and overturn the Government and 
change the constitution. 


6th Associated themselves with United Irishmen to Overturn 
the Government and constitution and Dethrone the 

7th Urged John Warneford Armstrong to aid in levying War 
against the King and to Seduce the Soldiers of the 
Kings County Militia to Desert and Join in Rebellion- 

8th Urged said John Warneford Armstrong to assist in 
exciting War against the King to Dethrone him and 
to seduce the Soldiers to desert and Rebel. 

9th Urged said John Warneford Armstrong to desert and 
Join in Rebellion. 

loth Formed a plan in writing and figures for surprizing the 
Camp at Lehaunstown and the Artillery of Chapelizod 
and for seizing the City of Dublin the Lord Lieutenant 
and Privy Council. 

11th Endeavoured with intent to Dethrone the King to persuade 
the said John Warneford Armstrong to Desert and 
Join in Rebellion. 

12th Procured and have a plan for taking the aforesaid Camp 
and seizing the aforesaid Artillery at Chapelizod, City 
of Dublin, Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council. 

13th wrote a Proclamation to excite the people to Rebellion 

14th Procured said Proclamation 

15th Procured 1000 Men armed to Assemble to levy War. 

16. Assembled to take and did take Accounts of Men and 
Officers and Arms for levying War and Rebellion, and 
set the said Accounts down in writing. 

2d Count — For Adhering to and aiding the Kings Enemies — 
All the Overt Acts in this Count are the same as in 
the former, except that the 7th Overt Act in this 
Count is additional — It is suspected this Additional 
Overt Act may have been Omitted in the Copy, tho’ 
contained in the first Count in the Original. 

7th O : Act — Did Associate as United Irishmen to aid the Kings 
Enemies, Overthrow the Government, change the 
Constitution and Dethrone the King. 

The Prisoners Case. 

That early in the year 179 the Prisoners became Members of 
the old Society of United Irishmen, The only Objects of which 
were Parliamentary Reform and Catholic Emancipation. this 
step however and the open and undisguised manner in which they 


always expressed their Opinions on these subjects render them 
extremely obnoxious to the partizans of Government. The 
common cry of Traitor and Revolutionist was raised against them 
from every Quarter and every Social Enjoyment was poisoned by 
the Calumnies thus circulated against them. In *the 

Society to which they belonged was suppressed by force — since 
they never Joined any political Society or Institution whats’’ nor 
ever during this Interval concerned themselves in any political 
matters except in the Election at Cork, for which place the prisoner 
Henry stood as Candidate when he made a public profession of 
his political creed in favor of Reform. This circumstance revived 
the Odium against both, which had begun to subside, and this 
Odium Avas nurtured by their having been often being professionally 
employed in the defence of persons accused of being concerned in 
offences against the State. These appear to be the causes that 
marked out the prisoners as fit Objects for deceitful practices of 
any needy and unprincipled Man, who expected by these means 
to recommend himself to Government, and relieve himseH from 
the pecuniary embarrassments under Avhich he might labour — 
Accordingly Captain John Warneford Armstrong of the Kings 
Comity Militia, deeply Involved in Debt and professedly an Atheist 
and Republican, for ivhich sentiments he was by his own Account 
obliged to quit the Somerset Militia in England some years ago, 
in which he had a Commission, laid a Scheme for entrapping 
prisoners into such a situation as may give him the power of 
misrepresenting their sentiments and conduct to Government 
without the possibility of their contradicting his Information by 
the Evidence of any fourth person — To effect this purpose he 
endeavoured to procure an acquaintance with the Prisoner John 
by constantly throwing himself in his way and speaking in the most 
liberal manner in favor of the Liberties of this Country and in 
censure of the Measures of its Administration. This conduct 
produced the desired effect on the unguarded Mind of Prisoner 
John, in whom, as well as in his Brother the Prisoner Henry, a 
Total want of suspicion amounting to folly, is the predominant 
characteristic — Accordingly the Prisoner John on enquiring of 
Patrick Byrne of Grafton Street Bookseller at whose Shop he had 
frequently seen the prosecutor and heard him speak as aforesaid, 
learned that the Prosecutor had often expressed a desire to be 
acquainted with Prisoners, to which the prisoner John gave his 
consent. Some days after the prosecutor was Introduced to 
Prisoner Henry by the said Patrick Byrne who imagined it was 

* blank in MS. 


Indifferent to which of the Prisoners the Introduction was made 
as he considered the object of it was merely a general acquaintance. 
Note — It is suspected that the prosecutor will endeavour to prove 
that the said Patrick Byrne sent for him to Lehaimstown Camp 
where he then was with his Regiment at the express desire of the 
prisoner John for the purpose of a particular communication 
And it is also feared that the said Byrne who was arrested at the 
same time with the Prisoners and is still in Custody may be 
brought forward and Induced from the fear of prosecution or 
remaining in Confinement to corroborate the prosecutor’s Testimony 
in this particular. 

By desire of the said Patrick Byrne the prosecutor and the 
prisoner Henry retired into a Room within the said Byrnes Shop> 
where they only conversed on general Subjects — The prosecutor 
at length enquired for the prisoner John and was told that he was 
expected in every instant. Here prosecutor and prisoner Henry 
parted the latter going out of the Shop and the former still remaining 
there — In a short time the prisoner John (who was in the habit 
of making that Shop a Common Rendevous with the said Henry) 
entered and was introduced to the prosecutor in the same maimer 
as the prisoner Henry, and at the desire of the said Byrne retired 
into the Back Room — here the subject of conversation soon turned 
on the alarming State of the Country — The agitation of the public 
Mind — The various Reports generally circulated through Dublin 
of intended insurrections by the people and particularly by the 
United Irishmen, &c. — In the course of this conversation the 
prisoner John regretted that the refusal of Government to enquire 
into the grievances of the people and the System of Coercion and 
Military free- quarter which was then approaching the City, had 
caused so great a danger to public tranquilhty and rendered many 
persons advocates for resistance by force who had before confined 
their views to constitutional Opposition — That if these measures 
of violence and Insurrection so commonly reported were really 
carried into Execution (as he much feared they would), the most 
dreadful Carnage would ensue and friends and foes to the people 
would be involved in one Common Ruin, particularly if as some 
Reports stated the Insurrection should take place by night — That 
as far as he could learn the Abettors of this violence counted much 
on the Yeomanry and Military for Assistance, and among the rest 
he had heard the Regiment to w^^ the prosecutor belonged spoken 
of as containing many disaffected Men and United Irishmen. 
The Prosecutor during this conversation led the prisoner John on 
from one point to another by questions and the most acrimonious 
Invectives against the Government many Members of which he 


abused in the grossest Terms, and having by his questions learned 
that his Regiment was suspected immediately declared that he 
himself had been at some pains to find out whether or not the 
character of the Regiment was a meritted one. But in vain — 
That tho’ he was well known to be well affected to the Liberties 
of the people no Soldier would disclose his Sentiments to him on 
political matters for fear of being punished, if suspected of going 
too far, but that he strongly suspected that either there were no 
United Irishmen in the Regiment or they were very few. That 
the ascertaining of this point would be of the utmost Importance 
as it would give him an opportunity of preventing them from 
being injured by the people who ought to be taught to distinguish 
their friends from their foes by some particular Signal agreed on — 
The prisoner John acquiesced that it would be useful to ascertain 
that fact as it may considerably tend to deter the Advocates for 
violence from their purposes, if it was known from so good an 
Authority as one of its own Officers, that the Regiment on which 
they so much relied was really the Reverse of what they expected 
to find it. At this the prosecutor seemed eager to prevail on 
prisoner John to suggest some method by which he the prosecutor 
may become acquainted with some Men of the Regiment who were 
supposed to be United that he may from them learn the Real State 
of the Regiment, but as prisoner John neither knew any Individual 
in the Regiment nor could suggest any means of acquiring the 
necessary information he waved the subject. The Prosecutor 
however still urged the utility of the enquiry and requested the 
prisoner John to find out from any person acquainted with the 
Regiment the name of any Soldier or Serjeant in it, who was 
supposed to be favorable to the people. This the prisoner John 
promised to endeavour, and rose to depart — The prosecutor then 
addressed him thus — Mr. Sheares, I have long had a desire to be 
acquainted with you and your Brother (meaning the Prisoner 
Henry) yet tho’ I have now procured that satisfaction I must 
acknowledge to you that from the Troubled nature of the times 
your well known Opposition to the measures of Government and 
my situation as an Officer, I wish as much as possible that our 
acquaintance may not be publickly known lest it may Injure me 
in the suspicious minds of the Government and I therefore exact 
from you a perfect secrecy concerning our present Interview or 
our acquaintance — ^however as I am soon going out of Dublin to 
Camp and that your House lies in my way I will call on you to 
know if you shall have acquired the Information I so much wish 
for. The Prisoner John made him the Assurance of secrecy required 
-and they parted. Note — That neither during this conversation 


nor at parting or at any other time whatever did prisoner John 
even hint at Secrecy, so little did he conceive that any evil 
construction could be put upon his words or conduct. It is however 
feared that prosecutor will pervert every thing that was say’d 
and put his own words into prisoners Mouth. 

At about 4 o’clock in the Evening of the same day the prisoner 
John returned home and found the prosecutor in the parlour 
conversing with the prisoner Henry on the same Subject which 
he the prosecutor purposely introduced tho’ he must have been 
convinced by his former Interview with Prisoner Henry that he 
either did not at all concern himself in politics or purposely avoided 
any communication with him on that subject. The Conversation 
was almost wholly between the prosecutor and Prisoner John 
who declared that he had not been able to discover any thing on 
the Subject they had been speaking on — Whenever the prisoner 
Henry joined in the conversation it was in answer to the enquiries 
of the Prosecutor about the Reports in circulation of the intended 
Insurrection. — ^Among these he enumerated one, say’d to be 
projected against the Camp of Lehaunstown, which he declared 
could be easily taken and mentioned the forces in it — The Quantity 
of Artillery, and dwelt much upon the Cruelties of the Ancient 
Britons then in Camp which last he hoped would be cut to pieces, 
if any attack was made. Other Reports were mentioned some 
by the prosecutor and others by the Prisoners of an intended 
attack on Chapelizod — On Dublin — The Castle &c. — The Prosecutor 
then took his leave declaring his intention of calling the day after 
But that he would chuse the Dusk of the Evening for that purpose 
lest he may be injured by its being known that he visited at the 
House — Note — That notwithstanding this affected precaution he 
not only went afterwards Twice or three times openly in the day 
time at the most public Hours to the prisoners House, but dined 
with them the day before their Arrest. And it is suggested to 
Counsel that the prosecutor will find it difficult to reconcile this 
Inconsistency — he is however very cunning. 

The next interview occurred on the following Evening at 9 
o’clock according to the appointment of the prosecutor — at this 
the prisoner Henry was not present having dined abroad nor did 
any thing different from what is already Stated to have happened 
at former meetings, occur at this, except that the prisoner John 
ment*^ that he expected to see a Gentleman the day following 
who may Assist him in his research and at the same time mentioned 
the name of one Fannan a Serjeant in the Kings County Militia 
whom he had heard mentioned as suspected to be a United Irishman 
— They then parted — The prosecutor saying that he would call 


on the prisoner John on the then next day at one o’clock in the day 
— The Inconsistency of appointing such an Hour after the fears 
expressed by the prosecutor of being seen to call at the House 
struck the prisoner immediately, but did not inspire him with 
any fear or suspicion not being conscious of any guilty intent in 
what he was engaged in. 

Agreeably to his Appointment the Prosecutor called the next 
Day and the Prisoner John not being at home exactly at that 
time the prisoner Henry out of politeness sat with him until the 
prisoner John’s return, during which time the prosecutor continued 
to engage him on the same Subject as before — On the prisoner 
John’s return the prosecutor informed him that there was no such 
Serjeant in the Regiment as Fannan, but that there was a private 
Soldier of the name of Femion — (Note — The information of the 
prisoner John from its inaccuracy camiot appear to be derived 
from the Authority of any one acquainted with the Regiment 
or carrying on any Clandestine Intercourse with it) — There happened 
at that moment to come in Surgeon Lawless whom the prisoner 
John alone was acquainted with, and who Introduced him to the 
prisoner Henry and the Prosecutor. The Prisoner John then told 
Mr. Lawless the subject they were on, who say’d, he himself and 
another person had the curiosity to question a Man of that Regiment 
on the same Subject who declared there were some United Irishmen 
among them, but could not say how many as they had no 
communication with each other — The prosecutor was very anxious 
to know the name of that Man which Mr. Lawless declared he 
never knew — Still the prosecutor urged Mr. Lawless to find out 
his name if possible, and to send it to the prisoner John who would 
communicate it to him — This Mr. Lawless promised to do, and 
soon after departed. He however never did any further in it, 
and prosecutor in a few Minutes took his leave. Note — during 

the Entire of this Interview, The Prisoner Henry who had never 
seen Mr. Lawless before, scarcely say’d a single word, except when 
addressed by the Prosecutor — Yet it is apprehended that the 
prosecutor will represent him as acquainted with Mr. Lawless 
and giving his advice how to act &c. — The Prosecutor on going 
away say’d he would call again before dinner to know what the 
Prisoner John might have learned and to communicate to him 
any Ideas that might in the Interim Strike him. 

At between five and six o’clock in the Evening of the same day 
while the Prisoners were at diimer The Prosecutor called at their 
House and was received by the Prisoner John who shew^’d him 
into the Office where the Prisoner John assured him he had not 
been able to learn any thmg further on the subject — at that 


moment there came in a Man to whom the prisoner John had 
been speaking of this matter who gave him a Note of Introduction 
from a Mr Hill whom the prisoner John never before heard of 
to Serjeant Conors of the Kings County Militia and which the 
Prisoner John handed over to the Prosecutor. The note was to 
the following effect — Mr Hill recommends the bearer to Serjeant 
Conors as his particular friend in whom he may repose every 
Confidence — There was something very confused in this transaction 
as the Note seems to have been intended for some one else or Mr. 
Hills friendships must, of a peculiar nature and like a Bank Note^ 
be payable to Bearer be he who he may, (Note — none of the Counts 
of the Indictment seems to be applicable to this as an Overt Act) — 
The Prisoner John being in a hurry Back to his Dinner, the 
Prosecutor went away, after having promised to dine with the 
prisoner the Sunday following — before his going he say’d he would 
send Serjeant Conors up to Town the following day to the Prisoner 
John — this the prisoner John declined as he knew nothing of either 
the Serjeant or Mr Hill — The prosecutor then asked where the 
Man lived who brought the note — The prisoner John told him 
No. 5 Bride Street, and he the prosecutor wrote it down declaring 
he would send him there and advised the prisoner John to see 

According to Invitation by the Prisoner John, the Prosecutor 
came to Dinner on the Sunday following, and then told said John 
in presence of the said Henry that he had shewn Hills Note to 
Serjeant Conors who denied any knowledge of Hill and declined 
going up to Town except Ordered to do so — The Prosecutor asked 
the Prisoners did they not agree with him in thinking the better 
of the Serjeant for his Caution — to which they both answered 
in the Affirmative — (Quere — if this subsequent approbation by the 
prisoner Henry of a former Overt Act by the said John makes 
it his own) — The said John then took the prosecutor into the 
Office and shewed some names of Serjeants and Officers which 
he had heard belonged to his Regiment and were say’d to be 
favorable to the cause of Liberty — The said Henry was not present — 
These names were written by the said John on the Back of a Letter 
which was on the following Morning found in his pocket when 
he was Arrested — And as some of the principal Counts of the 
Indictment are founded on these names so written as an Overt 
Act to prove a design of taking the Camp at Lehaunstown and 
the paper containing these names is called in the Indictment a 
plan for that purpose, it is necessary to Advert to it very particularly 
— The first, and most material point is, that the said Henry never 
saw it nor even ever Conversed about any of the names on it 


except that of Fannan (about whom Government are at a loss 
as appears by some attempts made to extract from the said Henry 
since his confinement some account of the Man with whom he is 
wholly unacquainted) and the name of Serjeant Conors as aforesaid 
but it is Doubted that this latter name is in that paper — Secondly — 
There are among the names written thereon those of some of the 
Officers who are in fact the most unlikely to engage in any enterprize 
of that kind, well known to be loyal and Aristocratic k — The 
Prisoner does not recollect any of these names but those of Mr 
Wilkinson who he believes is a Surgeon and Lieutenant in the 
Kings County Militia and Captain Crofton who does not even 
belong to that Regiment (being an Officer in the Roscommon 
Militia and Brother to Sir Edward Crofton of Meath) nor was 
he Quartered at the Camp nor had any thing at all to do with 
it — Among the Serjeants mentioned on the paper some were 
Quartered at the Black Rock and could not by any means be 
concerned in the alledged conspiracy to betray the camp — All 
these names were taken down on the Back of a Letter from the 
account of an Ignorant fellow who affected to know a great deal 
about that Regiment and were in fact shewn to the prosecutor for 
the purpose of pointing out to the prosecutor, how vague and 
unfounded all the Reports relative to the Regiment were, and 
intended to [use it] be used by the Prisoner John for the purpose 
of shewing to any one he may meet with who was likely to have 
any Influence among the people that they be convinced of their 
Error in expecting Military Assistance and thus be deterred from 
Violence — Note — There is no observation whatsoever annexed to 
those names. 

‘■"During Dinner and until the Females withdrew. The most perfect 
X)icture of Domestic happiness that could soften the most obdurate 
heart was presented in the Family then collected together — It 
consisted of the Prisoners Mother and Sister and the Wife and 
three young children of the Prisoner Henry on all of whom he 
Doats with the tenderest Affection — Yet could not this Scene 
move the prosecutor from his purposed Treachery — On the contrary 
he was very lively and seemed to enjoy the ruin he meditated — 
When the Wine had circulated pretty freely the prosecutor again 
renewed the political Theme, spoke in the harshest Terms of the 
Government, and particularly of the Chancellor, Speaker and some 
others whom he Termed the prime movers of all the Cruelties, 
Military and Civil, that were inflicted on the people. Among 
many other instances which he cited to enflame the passions of 

. . a quoted by Davis. 


the Prisoners, he mentioned one, that deserves notice — he say’d 
he was on Guard one Night at the Castle, when a Guard was 
demanded of him to quell some Tumult in the Liberties — That 
the orders expressly given by Major Sirr to him were, to desire 
the Officer who was to command the party going on that service — 
to be sure to shed Blood enough, to spare neither Man Woman 
nor Child and at his peril to take no prisoners — That he did 
accordingly give those orders, and that the Officer entirely disobeyed 
them, and brought back some prisoners, for which he was violently 
abused by Major Sirr.^ On the Prisoners censuring the prosecutor 
in plain Terms for Transmitting such horrid Orders a Warm 
Conversation ensued on the Subject — The prosecutor maintaining 
that he was bound as a Soldier to obey his Superior Officer — They 
parted at about 9 o’clock after they had drank pretty freely. 
The prosecutor say’d he would call next day. 

Note — It is imagined from some Counts in the Indictment 
that the prosecutor will pervert what was mere Conversation 
(always introduced by himself) into the appearance of consulting 
in plans of Insurrection and Attack — To favor this intended 
perversion he used at every Interview, and particularly at the 
last, mention the weak points of the Camp at Lehaunstown, how 
easily the people may take it by attacking it in such and such 
a manner — how likely it was that the disaffected Soldiers would 
aid them &c. At the last meeting he was even more Astute than 
before, and not content with mentioning the Report of the projects 
of the peoples seizing the Privy Council as Hostages &c he declared 
that it would be easy for them to take the Castle before the Lord 
Lieutenant could stir out of his chamber — and then proceeded 
to mention observations that had occurred to him when on Guard 
there, on the facility of entering at the Back by Ship Street or 
Stephen Street and going along by the necessary to reach the 
Castle unobserved and get Admittance at a Door which is always 
left open for the Officers at Night to go Backwards on occasion, — 
with a variety of other Insidious remarks evidently made to lay 
a Ground work for the present prosecution — Another observation 
that fell from the prosecutor at this last interview deserves Notice, 
as it is probable he may represent it as coming from the Prisoners, 
in the shape of a Bribe for disloyalty. It is this — The prosecutor, 
say’d, that if the people did rise and succeed he hoped they would 
not strip him of his Commission, who was always friendly to 
their Liberties. To which the prisoner John replied [that it was 
more probable they would make him Colonel as Colonel L ’Estrange 
was deemed a violent Man against them.] 


1 that they ought rather to make him Colonel since Sir Laurence 

Parsons had Resigned — 

The next Morning Monday the 21st of May, the Prisoners were 

Such is the entire of the prisoners Case as far as the prisoner 
Henry had any concern in it — No papers or other Documents 
were found either on his person or in his House or Elsewhere that 
can in the slightest Degree throw even a suspicion on him, unless 
a paper found in the Desk of the said John and in his hand writing 
but of the Existence of which the Prisoner Henry was wholly 
ignorant Otherwise he would have destroyed it as he had full 
sufficient time to do before the Arresting Officer entered his House. 
The Prisoner John was then absent and was arrested by Major 
Sirr, on calling at Mr. Lawless’s House. ^It is suggested to Counsel, 
that as the only means by which any of the Overt Acts committed 
exclusively by the said John can attach upon the said Henry 
arise from the alledged conversation &c. of both the Prisoners 
in presence of the Prosecutor for the purpose of overturning the 
Government &c.. The entire force of the Prisoners defence should 
be directed to shew in the first instance that at these interviews 
nothing occurred but conversations started by the Prosecutor 
himself and afterwards distorted by him into Criminal Consultations 
— and secondly that whatever consultations can be suspected to 
have passed between the prosecutor and John, Henry had no 
concern in — none of the Overt Acts laid in the Indictment having 
been Committed in his presence nor with his Concurrence or 
knowledge, possessed of compleat Domestic happiness he felt it a 
duty he owed his Family and self to avoid engaging in any pohtical 
Controversy by which he had already so severely injured them. 
The same motives actuated the said John to preserve to the said 
Hei;ry the full Advantage of this prudent resolution tho’ more 
addicted from nature and situation to Indulge his own political 
propensities he endeavoured to avert from the said Henry any 
Inconvenience or Injury that might result from his the said John’s 
conduct, — But the Artifice of the prosecutor Baffied him, and 
apparently connected both in this transaction — Yet when it is 
considered that at the first Introduction between the prosecutor 
and the Prisoner Henry which certainly was entirely unsought 
for by the latter no political Conversation whatsoever took place — 
That he, Henry, was never present when any of the names of 
Officers or Serjeants were written or produced — That at two of 
the Meetings between the Prosecutor and John, Henry was absent 

1 Interlined. 


— That in no instance did Henry take upon him any part or 
promise to do any Act, nor to procure any of the Information 
sought for — That no writing or other Document whatsoever was 
found in his possession — That, tho’ John his Brother lived in his 
House, their papers were wholly distinct and those of each secret 
and unknown to the other — that it can in no instance be shewn 
that Henry Associated with any Individual suspected of being 
concerned in this Rebellion’’ — And Lastly when Many, and the 
most respectable Witnesses shall testify the constitutional extent 
of his political opinions and the Absorption of all his attention 
by his Domestic and professional Duties — that the office was 
open — all the friends and acquaintance of Prisoners who had free 
ingress there — while others prove Atheism and Republican principles 
against the Prosecittor, besides many instances of unbecoming 
conduct and his pecuniary Embarrassments, it is hoped that this 
will be found to be a Conspiracy against the Prisoners, or at least 
against one of them, instead of against the State — nor can there 
be a stronger proof of the Prisoner Henry’s conscious Innocence, 
than his not attempting to Escape, which he might with the utmost 
Ease have effected before the Guard entered the House, nor did 
he attempt to destroy any paper or other Document or take any 
step whatsoever for his preservation from a thorough Conviction 
that he had nothing to fear. 

That the Prisoner John was apprehended by Major Sirr at the 
Door of Mr. Lawless’s House in Trench Street — submitted without 
resistance to his Arrest — could easily have concealed any papers 
then in his pocket, had he been conscious that any of them contained 
Criminal matter — as a Lawyer he must have known that the 
previous conspiracy with the prosecutor (if any such had Existed) 
would be corroborated by the papers in his pocket, and he would 
therefore have concealed them, which he might easily have done, 
as he was in Mr. Lawless’s Parlour a full hour before Major Sirr 
required to have his papers, during which Interval every person 
in the House was so busily employed, that he might easily have 
concealed whatever he feared might be Injurious to him — On the 
contrary he gave them all up with his own hands to Major Sirr 
who did not attempt to search his person — When taken to the 
Guard Room at the Castle another instance occurred of the prisoner 
John’s total unconsciousness that any intercourse he had had 
with the prosecutor was of a Criminal nature — while there in 
Custody, the prosecutor entered, expressed his surprize and concern 
at seeing the prisoner there — enquired if there was any danger of 

b • , 

. . b quoted by Davis 


prisoner, or if the Government had any charge against him — Offered 
his Services in the most friendly manner — Prisoner, instead of 
suspecting him or fearing him, as he naturally would have done^ 
if conscious he could injure him, felt and expressed himseh as 
highly grateful for such friendly attention — Say’d, all he feared 
was, that a certain paper had been found in his Desk that if it was,, 
he would certainly be committed — recommended to the prosecutor 
to withdraw immediately from the Room, lest any injurious 
Suspicion might attach upon him if seen in Conversation with 
the Prisoner — (Prisoner thought that Prosecutors anxiety for him 
made him forget his former Caution relative to their acquaintance) 
— Prisoner requested Prosecutor, that he would call upon his 
Family and peacify their fears, which he promised to do. and 
departed.® The Prisoners know not in what insidious manner the 
Prosecutor may represent this Interview — but it must be remarked 
that the Prosecutor never knew any thing about the Proclamation 
found in Prisoners’ Desk, and that if any mention be made of it 
in his Informations, it must have been inserted in them subsequent 
to the Arrest of the Prisoners, — whereas there is no doubt that 
Prosecutor after each interview went directly to the Castle and 
gave his Informations — particular care should be taken to shew 
that the Prisoner Henry was not by any means or in any Degree 
privy to the papers found in John’s pocket and Desk as the 
establishment of this point will be the favourite point of the 

As to the paper found in prisoner John’s open Desk it will 
require the fullest exertions of Counsel to prevent it from being 
misrepresented as it Labours under every disadvantage that an 
imperfect, interlined unarranged and mutilated Scroll can do — 
It is indeed a scroll in every sense of the word — whether it be 
considered as to the hand writing or to the confusion and want 
of connection in the sentiments some of which are but half expressed 
in one part and after another intervening matter, finished in 
another — sometimes on the same and at others on a Separate 
piece or scrap of paper — Enough however can be collected from 
it to shew that something in the nature of a Proclamation to the 
people of Ireland was in the contemplation of the Writer — But 
what the real object of it was cannot appear but by explanation 
and Evidence of the writers opinions relative to points mentioned 
therein — (the Justification of his opinions on some of these points 
is considered by the Prisoner in whose Desk these papers were 
found, of more importance than his personal safety). The real 

c , 

. . c quoted by Davis. 


motive for writing it was this. Public Report and private 
conversations concurred to persuade the writer that an Insurrection 
was intended and would probably succeed. The City of Dublin 
was spoken of by some as likely to be the first Object of attack. 
It is therefore considered and mentioned in the Proclamation as 
already taken — (this shews that its Object was not to create 
Rebellion but that the paper was a mere Speculative Writing 
which could not be published unless a certain event took place. 
And non constat the writer must have had any further knowledge 
that such an Event was in Agitation but from public Report) — 
It also mentions that some Members of the Government have been 
Slain — (this also was merely on the Supposition that if the people 
resorted to force and succeeded, they would Sacrifice some of the 
most Obnoxious Individuals to their fury. Nor has this been a 
very uncommon Observation being often made use of by those 
who least wished it) — It likewise mentions that many of the 
Military had joined the National Cause and recommends to the 
people to receive such as should follow their Example — All these 
Circumstances shew the Writing was merely Speculative — (Vide 
Alger. Sidney’s Case, State Trials) — On this supposition therefore 
the Writer Built another, in which History well Justified him, 
namely. That tho’ the people might be amply contented before 
they resorted to violence with an Amelioration of their Government, 
they would afterwards be satisfied only with a separation from 
British Authority, and a new Modelled Constitution- — Accordingly 
there are expressions to that effect in it — having Supposed the 
occurrence of all these circumstances, the writer then proceeds 
to Guard against the mischiefs that might and probably would 
arise during a popular convulsion in a Country situated as this 
is — The four Evils he particularly dreaded were — The Wreck of 
property — The horrors of Religious animosity and the gratification 
of private Revenge, and of the passion of Cruelty — The three 
former are mentioned but the last is Omitted, the Writing not 
being finished — It was to have followed that part where the people 
are called on to avenge their wrongs — some of which are enumerated, 
but it was intended to distinguish between that Vengeance which 
has the removal and Annihilation of vicious political Institutions 
and their consequent Grievances for object, from that Revenge 
which goads to the practice of Cruelty and Recks its base resent- 
ments upon the unarmed and unresisting without distinction of 
Age or sex — the former alone could animate the patriot — the latter 
the Assassin — It is suggested that some explanation of this kind 


Avill be necessary to efface the impression which that nnfinished 
part of the proclamation calling on the people to take Vengeance 
on their Enemies, may make upon the Jury — Another part of this 
proclamation is particularly worthy of Notice, as it must tend 
entirely to misrepresent the sentiments of the Writer on a pomt 
to which his feelings are anxiously alive. In this part it is declared 
that “ no quarter shall be given to such as draw their Swords 
against their Native Country unless they speedily join the Rational 
Standard ” and the latter part of this Sentence is marked for 
omission by being scratched with the pen — whence it would appear 
as if the writer wished to enforce the horrid and detestable measure 
of giving no Quarter to a defeated Foe — a Measure which next 
to Assassination, he holds in the utmost abhorrence — his object 
Avas to frustrate that very measure, and thinking the word speedily 
too vague a term, he intended to substitute some certain time 
during which it should not be practiced and at the expiration 
of which the violence of popular fury might be abated. Besides 
the moral depravity of the Sentiment, nothing could more effectually 
exasperate the jury, who will probably be all Yeomen, and feel 
themselves personally involved in this proscription. It will be 
difficult for Counsel to explain these parts so as to do Justice to 
the sentiments and feelings of the writer and save his character 
from the im merited imputation of Cruelty without appearing to 
give the Avriting too much importance when perhaps it would be 
more Just and politic to treat it as the Abortive foetus of a visionary 
Brain Avhich never was destined to be uttered alive into Society — 
It is Avritten in violent Revolutionary Language — is addressed to 
the people of Ireland sometimes rmder the appellation of United 
Men of Ireland, & speaks in the plural number “We,” tho’ it does 
not mention or hint who We are. 

There is also another Written Document on which some of 
the Overt Acts in the Indictment are founded — it is an abridged 
Account of numbers of men with the observations of “ Organized ” 
after some and “ Armed ” after others — it appears to be a Return 
of Forces, and was Avritten on the back of the same Letter which 
contained the names of the Serjeants &c. before mentioned with 
Avhich it Avill be sought to connect it. Yet the prosecutor never 
saw it — it was a Note of every Vague account that Prisoner John 
heard accidentally mentioned of the numbers say’d to be in 
different places — Curiosity alone induced him to put them down. 


Detached Observations. 

Prosecutor declared he had been a United Irishman for two 
years but did not belong to any particular Society. Enquired if 
the prisoners did, to which they Answered in the negative — he 
then expressed a desire that he could get into a Society with any 
respectable Gentlemen and mentioned many — ^Note — unless the 
above be brought out on the direct Examination of Prosecutor it 
would perhaps be imprudent to mention it on the Cross Examination 
as it may shew that the parties conversed as United Irishmen — 
If introduced however will it not prove that Prisoners could not 
be Official in any thing they say ’d or did, as prosecutor will endeavour 
to Represent them — For to be Official it is necessary according 
to the Constitution which was published by the Secret Committee 
of the House of Commons that a Man should be of some Society 
and Elected thereby into Office. And to be in Confidence must 
have Advanced thro’ all the Inferior Situations. 

It is Suggested to Counsel that as the Prosecutor in his 
Informations must have mixed some grains of truth with a great 
Weight of falsehood it may not be unjust to deprive him as much 
as possible of the Advantage which so insidious a use of truth 

itself may give him by . . . mittin. ... lit possible of 

the . . . . o . . Case whe dmis. . . . may corrobo- 

rate prosecutors Testimony in any particular.* 

It is requested that Counsel direct what use shall be made of 
the following piece of Evidence — A Letter from Prisoner John 
to Mr. Nelson was found in the pocket of that Gentleman when he 
was arrested — it was written by Prisoner to dissuade Mr Nelson 
from a rash and dangerous attempt which he meditated against 
Kilmainham Jail in order to Rescue the Prisoners therein confined, 
it mentions that “ Prisoner discovered the design by Accident 
and would if no other means were left to counteract it give 
Information of it to Government that Evening unless it was given 
up — ^that it would if efiected be destructive to our Friends and 
Ruinous to the Cause of Liberty in this Country.” This will shew 
that prisoner was not an Advocate for Violence which he deemed 
Injurious to the Cause of Liberty — The Letter throughout is 
perfectly Guarded as the writer apprehended the very fate it met 
with. It is in the hands of Government — should not Mr. Cooke 
Secretary be summoned to bring it into Court. Prisoner woidd 


* Note. Some words are illegible here. 



not Resort to this piece of Evidence however serviceable it may 
be to him if he did not believe that it would at all Events be 
produced against Mr. Nelson. 

Proofs on behalf of the Prisoners. 

Doctor Burke 
Doctor Drenan 
Charles Ryan, 

Thomas Lee, Merchh 
Dillon, Merchh 

Attend to prove the Constitutional object 
of the Original Society of United 

Thomas Drought Attend to prove the Prosecutor an Atheist 

Esq*"® and Republican from frequent Conversa- 

tions on these Subjects and a strict Intimacy 
with him — Also that the Pros'", himself 
declared he was on account of these 
principles obliged to Quit the Somerset 
Militia, in which he had held a Commission. 

Sir Joseph Hoare Bart. 
Barth^ Hoare Esq'® 
Sir PaU O’Conor 
Jonah Barrington 

Joseph Dennis Esq'® 
Rev*^ Mr. Lee 
Rev^^ Mr. Sterling 

Higgins Esq'® 

Captain y 

Edward Hoare Esq'® 
Sir Richard Kellet 
Will™ Sankey Esq'® 
Rumbold Lyster 

John Loyd Esq'® 
Rev*^ Mr. Stawell 
John Therry Esq'® 
Rev'' C 

of the Prisoners 

Attend to prove that 
from acquaintance 
and conversations 
with Prisoners, that 
their Political prin- 
ciples were confined 
to Reform, and a 
thorough Restora- 
tion of the consti- 
tution to its Original 
purity. — Some of 

them will also prove 
that the attention 
seemed since the 

Some words illegible. 


[Sir Robert Hodson 

[Captn Evans] 
Thomas Casey Esq'® 

Lord Molesworth Attend to prove as 
Major Mellefont above — and also that 

Cha® Frizell Esq'® the Pris' Henry’s 
whole anxiety has 
been absorbed in the 
study of his Family’s 
welfare — and his time and affections 
monopolized by the Enjoyment of his 
Domestic Felicity. 

William 0 ’Regan Esq'® 
Chichester St. Leger 

Leader Esq'® 

Attend to prove the same as the two 
former Classes of Witnesses — And also 
that the Pris' John has frequently 
reprobated the violent measures which 
threatened the public peace, and that 
his constant opinion was, that nothing 
could be more Destructive to the cause 
of Liberty, or more Grateful to its’ 
Enemies than Violence on the part of 
the people. 

The King 

Henry Sheares and 
John Sheares Esqrs 

Special Commission. 12th July 1798 
Additional Brief on behalf of the Prisoners^ 

That the said John Warneford Armstrong is a man of a most 
Dissipated and profligate Character, and by his Debauchery,, 
Excesses and Extravagance was obliged to sell all or the greater 
part of his Estate in the Kings Cormty, and still remains £5000 
in Debt. T himself from these Embarrass- 
ments, he went off to England a 

in the Somerset Mflitia, from which he was driven on account of 

his *and Republican principles as he himself 

allows, but as it is suspected for some base actions or unworthy 
Conduct. The same principles he always professed in this Country,, 
and among his intimate Acquaintances used none but the most 
Disloyal and Democratic Language and the most profane Denial 
of the Existence of a God — His usual Toasts after Dinner were — 
“ Damnation to all the Kings of Europe ” — and “ May the principles 
of the French Republic be scattered all over Europe ” — &c — Ho 


had been in the National Guards commanded by Hamilton Rowan 
and wore the Uniform as will be proved. Driven from his situation 
in England and being much Distressed in Circumstances, he obtained 
from Sir Laurence Parsons his present Company on account of the 
Interest of his family in the Kings County — (Note, he asked the 
Pris' John in one of their Conversations whether he thought Sir 
Laurence Parsons was a United Irishman, and on the Prisoner’s 
answering that he did not know but beheved he was not, the said 
Armstrong declared he would like to be certain of that fact, if he 
was that he might get into the same Society with him — thus 
Evincing a wish to betray his benefactor). In this situation he 
became as violently Loyal as he had been before the contrary. 
Yet he could accommodate his Language to his Company. In 
Mr. Byrnes Shop he was always the Liberal Advocate for the 
Liberties of the people in order to attract the notice and obtain 
the acquaintance of the Prisoners — In proof of this Design, which 
he will deny, Mr. Moore, Bookseller, of College Green, where 
Prisoners sometime Dealt, will prove that said Armstrong requested 
him to introduce him the said Armstrong to the Prisoners — The 
Design of this wretch in his political conduct was not the Honble 
one of obtaining the Reform of abuses and raising a degraded and 
miserable people to Physical and Moral happiness — his design 
was to Entrap the unwary virtue and betray whom he kissed. 

That the moral Depravity of the said Armstrong may be seen 
in all its horrid Colours, and to prove his soul has never relaxed 
in its baseness it is only necessary to take his own account of himself, 
given within a few days past and relating to a Transaction which 
has occurred since his villainy to the Prisoners — Thomas Drought 
Esq’’® a Gentleman acquainted with the said Armstrong passing 
dowm Grafton Street was called on from a window by the sd. 
Armstrong — on going up and Conversing with him, the said 
Armstrong informed Mr. Drought that he had been on an Expedition 
against the Rebels, in which he was wounded — That he and a 
General Officer overtook two Countrymen whom they suspected 
to be concerned with the Rebels, in order to extract information 
which these unfortunate men declared themselves unable to give, 
he ordered one of them to be Hanged as an Example to terrify 

the other without any Ceremony or of any kind — 

this however failed in producing the desired 

Companion still denied his powder to give any Information 

* hanged up, but after being suspended 

for a short time he was taken down and by the said Armstrongs 

* Some words illegible. 


orders the Lashes were applied to him, when the Wretch overcome 
by his sufferings, confessed or feigned a Confession — such was the 
Narration this villain gave of this monstrous, this attrocious scene. 
On being reproached by Mr. Drought with his Cruelty, and being 
asked what he could Expect hereafter, he laughed and replied — 
“ I thought you knew my sentiments too well long since on the 
subject of futurity ’’—and then as he had often done before 
argued against the Existence of the soul after this Life. 

Proofs on behalf of the Prisoners. 

Thomas Drought 
Robert Bride 
Chas Graydon 
Andrew Armstrong 
Robert Shervington 

Attend to prove the Prosecutor an Atheist 
and Republican from frequent conversations, 
on these subjects and a strict Intimacy 
with him — also that the Pros' himself 
declared that he was on account of these 
principles obliged to quit the Somerset 
Militia in which he held a Commission. — 
the Witness Thomas Drought will also 
give Evidence of his hanging the one man 
and half hanging the other as stated in 
the Brief. 

James Moore Attends to prove that the Prosecutor 

apphed to him to introduce him to the 

John Boardman Attends to prove that he has been intimate 

Esqre with Prisoners and has had frequent 

Political Conversations with them, particu- 
larly with the Pris' John — he has always 
regarded them as maintaining Constitu- 
tional principles, as Enemies to Bloodshed 
and Violence — has frequently heard them 
Express their horror at the probable 
Consequences of a Revolution either by internal force or 
External Invasion — Has heard them often regret that the 
refusal of Reform and the system of Mihtary Coercion 
tended to produce Revolution instead of preventing it — 
It is requested that Counsel will Dwell particularly on this 
part of the Witness’s Testimony and Extort every thing 
tending to prove the above fact as the Chief object avowed 


by Government for pressing forward these Trials is to 
Justify themselves and the dreadful measures they have 
adopted against the Country. 

Attend to prove that in aU their 
Conversations with Prisoners, 
which were many, they only 
observed a Constitutional Love of 
Liberty — that they believe the 
Prisoners’ Political Characters 
grossly misrepresented, and that 
it was too much the practice to 
brand with the name of Revolu- 
tionist anyone who censured the 
Measures of Government — that 
they know the Pris” for some 
time and believe them honorable and incapable of wishing 
for Bloodshed Revolution or Invasion, and that they are 
held in Esteem by those who are acquainted with them and 
their family. 

The Rev*^ Mr. Stawell Attends to prove the Prisoners Pohtical 


object than Reform in Parliament, and that 

as Enemies 

to Revolution, Invasion or Rebellion — 
that the Pris” always maintained that the best prevention 
of Revolution was found in Reform — that Calumnies had 
gone forth against their Pohtical Characters which were 
deemed false by the Witness and aU those of his Acquaintance 
who thoroughly knew them — That the Pris*^® spoke and 
acted in so open and unguarded a manner as to create them 
many Enemies and give rise to misrepresentation and that 
their private Characters were whoUy unimpeached. 

Wilham Higgins Esq’'® Attends to prove he is professor of 
Chemistry to the Dublin Society — is well 
acquainted with the Pris’' John whose Love 
for Science in general he can testify — has 
also had many Conversations with him on 
Politics as affecting the Progress of the 
Arts and Sciences in this Kingdom — has frequently heard 
him regret that a Liberal plan of Reform was not adopted 
which might prevent the people of this Country from rushing 
back through Revolution to Barbarism and might at the 

Bartholomew Hoare \ Esq” 
Rumbold Lyster / 

The Rev*^ Mr. Vesey 


same time by Ensuring the useful Expenditure of the pubhc 
money Enable the Arts and Sciences to Advance to the 
Relief of Society — one part of which languished in want 
and its peculiar Vices and Diseases while the other Revelled 
in those Species of Luxury which are as Destructive of 
Learning and true taste as they are Inimical to health and 
Virtue — ^Witness will prove that in all his Conversations 
with the Pris’^ John he ever discovered an aversion to 
Bloodshed & violence and beheves him incapable of favouring 
Revolution or Invasion- — knows that the same opinion is 
entertained of him by aU his Common Acquaintance by 
whom Pris"' is much Esteemed. 

William O’ Regan Attends to prove his knowledge of the 
Esq’'® Pris” Constitutional principles and Moral 

Characters — has often had Conversations 
with both, but particularly with Pris' 
John which generally turned on Morality 
and the unhappy situation of this Country, in which the 
Pris" seemed to have a lively interest from the most virtuous 
motives — that he believes them incapable of Encouraging 
Outrage and Violence — and has heard the Pris’' John declare 
that he would run every risk of Life to prevent as far as 
his voice could do, the people from committing any Acts 
of Violence as such Conduct would only ruin them and 
their Cause and afford a plausible pretext for their oppression 
—that he knew the Two -fold Danger to him arising from 
the Jealousy of Government and from the violent passions 
of the Advocates for Violence, but he would brave both in 
the Discharge of his Duty which he conceived the pubhc 
Avowal of his Sentiments to be — The Witness beheves 
Humanity and a horror of Cruelty & Injustice to be the 
Characteristics of the Pris” minds — he knows Pris’' John 
to be much attached to the Cultivation of Science and the 
Behes Lettres. 

Leader Esq'® Attends to prove that since his Return 

from England he has frequently conversed 
on Pohtics with the Pris' John — that in 
those Conversations he heard him frequently 
reprobate the violence which some 
advocates of Liberty seemed to consider 
as the best method of attaining their End — that the Pris' 

Henry on the contrary declared it as his opinion that 

could be more gratefuU to the Enemies of the Country, 


nor more injurious to its real I 

Intemperance and Violence — that a thorough Reform in 

Parhament was t wanting to the 

completion of Irish Prosperity — That he reprobated 

* foreign force in accomphshing 

this object & in short maint opinions ^ 

which he the Witness had heard the most respectable 
Characters of Opposition maintain in England. 

Chichester S* Leger Attends to prove a long & intimate 

Esq*" Acquaintance with the Pris. John in this 

Country in England & on the Continent — 
will support Mr. Leaders Evidence — will 
likewise prove both the Pris” of sanguine 
tempers unguarded & open, that to his 
knowledge many false & injurious Reports 
about their pohtical conduct & opinions had been circulated 
& believed — That from his knowledge of their Hearts he is 
convinced they are averse from Blood & Violence. 

Charles FrizeU Esq”"® Will prove the same. 

Wilham Flemyng and Will prove that they have known Pris” 

Gilbert Henry Flemyng many years in the most intimate manner — 
Esqrs they know their pohtical Sentiments well 

and is convinced they never exceeded 
Parhamentary Reform — Have had frequent 
opportunity of hearing their pohtical 
character calumniated — often requested of 
Pris*"® to withdraw from pohtics as injurious 
to them in their profession — -That Pris” did come to that 
Resolution and adhere to it— Witness Henry rec*^ a Letter 

to that Effect from Pris' John... the year 17*7 from Li 

since of the orig* Society 

of United * confident they never were 

of any Pohtical Society or Institution whatsoever — This 
the Witnesses knew' as w'eh from the Prisrs. conduct 
afterwards as from a very particular conversation they 
had with the Prisr. John on the subject which w'as occasioned 
by some of the Witnesses Relations warning him of the 
suspicion which was publickly attached upon the Pris” 
of being Modern United Irishmen. That he in consequence 

* Some words illegible. 


had a private & confidential Communication with the 
Pris' John on the subject from whom he received the most 
solemn & satisfactory Assurances that neither his brother 
or he had any concern in any political Institution whatsoever 
— Witnesses will prove the uncommon Attachment of the 
Pris’' Henry to his family & his domestic Habits — That 
tho’ the Pris’’ John lived in the Pris"" Henrys House & read 
in the same office, yet that their papers were entirely distinct 
— That all their friends & Acquaintances had Access to 
their Office & might Write there when they pleased, that 
they never knew Pris’' Henry trouble himself with writing 
on any subject but his private concerns — but have frequently 
seen Pris’’ John Write for his Amusement on various subjects 
sometimes in prose sometimes in Poetry — Have seen him 
frequently burn his writings. 

John Leech Esq” Attends to prove the same as the above 
Witnesses and also the Pris'" Henrys 
domestic Character and Attachment to 
his famil}". 

Thomas Casey Esq” Attends to prove the Constitutional Extent 
of Pris” political principles — Pris”" Henry’s 
domestic Attachment and prisoner John’s 
propensity to waiting for his own Amusem^’ 
on various subjects, sometimes Dabhng in 
Poetry & sometimes in Prose — Has often seen him destroy 
his writings — thinks both Pris” of an open unsuspicious 
Character unguarded in their Language & heedless of the 
Consequences, which are likely to result from censuring 
public Measures wdth Warmth & without Reserve. 

( 26 ) 


By Ada K. Longfield, M.A., LL.B., Member. 

[Read 26 January, 1937 .] 

T he general history of the linen industry in Ireland has 
been dealt with by many writers, but I venture to 
suggest that one aspect has been rather overlooked — ^that 
connected with the ornamentation of linen by means of printing 
and stamping. This is not altogether surprising, however, since 
the subject is of comparatively minor importance and has 
received little attention in most countries, with the exception of 
France. There, it was natural, that interest should be taken, 
owing to the lead given by the French manufacturers. Indeed, 
it was the genius of Oberkampf, and the excellence of his pro- 
ductions at Jouy, which set a standard for the rest of Europe, 
and for a brief period in the 18th century raised the decoration 
of linen by means of printing from a commercial to an artistic 
level. In order, however, to understand this particular phase 
of fashion, it is necessary briefly to refer to earlier developments, 
and to the reasons which gave such an impetus to the industry 
in the 17th and 18th centuries, not only in France, but elsewhere 
in Europe, including Ireland. 

The desire for some simple and economical means of super- 
imposing and duplicating patterns certainly arose fairly early 
in the history of textiles. Embroidery took time, and only 
limited results could be achieved by dyeing, even by dyeing 
in reserve. Painting, though often resorted to, was not an 
entirely satisfactory medium for practical purposes. So that it 
was natural to turn to the processes employed for the duplication 
of pictures on paper, or vellum, and to try to adapt such methods 
to suitable fabrics. From the late Middle Ages onwards, this 
was done on a small scale in Europe, mainly in the Ehenish 
Provinces. There, engraved wood blocks were utilised to stamp 
simple designs, usually in black, on linen or silk in order to 
provide economical substitutes for the costly figured velvets and 
silks of the period. Some of this early work is to be seen in 
the Victoria and Albert Museum, and one linen chasuble 

Plate I.j 

[To face page 20. 

C-Iiasuble, block-printed in black. Italian, late 15th century. For nse in 
time of plague. From a church in Piedmont ; now in the Victoria and 
Albert Museum, London. 

I'l ' 



' ■ r 


-, , f. 



f .-■■■■ 

Platp: 11.] 

jTo face ]moe 27. 

Linen and r\)tton printed in ])lue from \vood-])locks. French, floiiy. late 
IStli century. Victoria and ADHut MustMim. 


in particular (see Plate I.) shows how effective this unpretentious 
decoration could be. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that this style 
of work would have developed much further, had it not been 
for the stimulus afforded by the more attractive imports from 
the East. 

The art of decorating cotton fabrics by means of pounced 
drawings, with colouring added by hand, seems to have been 
practised in the East long before the application of wood block 
engravings in Europe. But it was not till the establishment 
of regular trading companies in India and China that the great 
import of Oriental goods began. About the middle of the 17th 
century it became the fashion in France, and consequently 
throughout Europe, to use these exotic and gaily coloured fabrics 
— variously known as “ Indiennes ” and “ Perses ” — for all 
conceivable household purposes, such as hangings, coverlets, 
furniture covers, etc., as well as for wearing apparel. The very 
intensity of the demand made the imported stuffs rare and 
costly, so that it is not surprising to find the development of 
efforts at imitation. Small industries arose in many places in 
France where native artisans sought to reproduce Oriental 
patterns on home or imported materials, and according to the 
methods described by travellers from the East. Since it was 
more profitable to curtail the hand work as much as possible, 
an ingenious system gradually evolved, whereby the colours were 
applied by brush or by dyeing, as in India, to designs printed 
by the aid of wood blocks, as has already been mentioned in 
connection with the Rhine Provinces. The results were less 
artistic, but considerably cheaper than the imported article, and 
found a ready market amongst the bourgeoisie. Indeed, by 
1685 the makers of silks, velvets, etc., declared that their own 
manufacturers were being ruined and sought the aid of legis- 
lation. In 1686 Colbert’s successor was persuaded to forbid the 
import, and to suppress the local centres for the “ painting of 
linen and cotton stuffs,” even ordering the destruction of the 
very blocks, as well as of all supplies in stock. ^ 

The actual effect of this edict was far-reaching and un- 
expected. Skilled artisans emigrated, carrying the secret of their 
trade with them, and helped in the foundation of rival 
manufactures in England, Holland, Switzerland and Germany. 
In France, the proscription merely served to enhance and to 
stabilise the demand, which might otherwise have been merely 

^ Histoire <le la Manufacture de Jouy et de la Toile Imprimee en 
France. Henri Clouzot, Paris, 1928, pp. 2-6. 


a passing whim of fashion. Despite repetitions of the edict, 
importation from the East continued, the home manufacture 
gradually revived in secret, and even goods from the new centres 
established by the emigrants abroad, were smuggled over the 
frontiers. This state of affairs lasted for about 70 years, but 
finally, in 1759, the prohibitions were officially raised and the 
industry entered on the great era of production associated with 
Oberkampf’s fabrications at Jouy. 

In England the opportunity afforded by the desire to follow 
French fashions was early recognised by the East India Com- 
pany. Indian printed stuffs poured into the country and 
increased in popularity, despite the jibes of writers: — “The 
chintz was advanced from lying upon their floors to their backs, 
from their footcloths to the petticoat,” declared one author.” ^ 
“ Their great-grandmothers, who for ornament and dress painted 
their own bodies, would be astonished at the calico-picts, their 
degenerate children, and fly from their own offspring,” wrote 
another.^ More serious opposition came from the woollen 
manufacturers, who feared the loss of their livelihood, especially 
when efforts were made to imitate the productions at home. 
'But though the woollen trade hampered the development of the 
industry in England, it was unable to prevent it, especially 
when the madder and resist technique became known, and 
French refugees brought their skill into the country. As little 
cotton was made in England prior to 1750 most of the material 
still came from India, but its decoration gave work to many 
factories in Surrey, and other places convenient to the London 

In Ireland the story is somewhat different. The same desire 
existed to have these goods and to print them in the country, 
but the woollen trade was not in a position to raise many objec- 
tions. In fact, so far as the English restrictions on Ireland’s 
trade allowed, textile printing in Ireland received almost 
universal encouragement. Arthur Dobbs, writing in 1729, pointed 
out that Irish linens to the value of £177,000 a year were sent 
to England and “ made a Manufacture there, by being stamp’d 
and stain’d,” which then increased their price by another lOd, 
a yard, so giving a gain of £147,500,.® That although Ireland 

2 Defoe. Weekly Review, 31 Jan., 1708. 

3 Steele ? The Spinster in Defence of Woollen Manufactures. 
1719, p. 16. 

4 The Beginnings of Calico-Printing in England. Parakunnel J. 
Thomas. English Historical Review, 1924, pp. 206-216. 

5 An Essay on the Trade and Improvements of Ireland. Arthur 
Dobbs, Dublin. 1729, pp. 54-63. 

Plate III.] 

[To face page 28 

C'otton, ])iinte(l in red from copiDer-plates at Old Ford, near London, in ITOl. 
Marks “ R. I. & Co. Old Ford 1761 ” and “ R. Jones 1761.” Victoria and 

Albert Museinn. 


was forbidden to export “ stain’d linens,” she could at least 
print those for home consumption and so save that portion of 
money from being spent on imports, was the opinion expressed 
by many writers of the time ; while practical assistance in the 
form of grants, etc., was given by the Trustees of the Linen Hall, 
the Dublin Society and the Irish Parliament. 

Almost from the date of their appointment in 1711, the 
Trustees of the Linen Hall realised the importance of the textile 
printing industry to the Irish linen trade in general. Early 
in the century they petitioned the legislature (though without 
success) that Irish printed linens might at least be freely 
exported to the plantations. As will be seen later, they tried 
to establish a manufacture under Daniel Chappell at Balls- 
bridge,® and throughout the century their grants to linen and 
cotton manufactures often included aid for the erection of print- 
ing machinery, buildings, etc. 

The assistance given by the Dublin Society was even more 
important and varied in nature, and, indeed, but for their 
records, there would be no information at all about some of the 
Irish printers. One of the Society’s earliest cares was to try 
and improve the standard of pattern drawing for industrial 
purposes, such as delft ware, silks, damasks, etc., as well as 
printed linens and cottons. 

Their efforts took the form of prizes for the best designs, and 
the first one for printed linens was offered in 1745 — £6 for the 
best patterns done by children under 15 years old."^ It was not 
claimed that year, but various prizes were awarded in the next 
few years. In 1758 the age was raised to 18 and about £11 was 
distributed for the best “ Inventions of Pattern Drawing on 
Ornamental Foliages, proper to the several Manufactures of this 
Kingdom,”® and there were many candidates for prizes in the 
succeeding years.® In 1764 the premiums were better defined 
and strictly limited to designs relating to manufactures, but 
open to “ all Persons ” under 18 who complied with the 
regulations whether “ instructed in the Schools of the Society ” 
or not.^® Later the age limit seems to have been further extended 
and by 1787 the “ most approved original patterns ” for linen, 
cotton and calico printers were divided into two classes, i.e., 

6 Precedents and Abstracts from Journals of Trustees of the Linen 
Manufactures of Ireland, 1711-37. Dublin, 1784, pp. 85, 88, 89, etc. 

Dub. Soc. MS. Minutes. 20 Jan., 1743. 

9 Ibid. 15 Nov., 1759 ; 27 Nov., 1760, etc. 

8 Ibid. 2 Nov., 1758. 

10 Dub. Soc. Proc., 1 Nov., 1764. 


for the Summer and Winter seasons. The premium money wa& 
also increased to allow of three prizes (£15, £11 7s. 6d., and 
£5 13s. 9d.) in each class. Each claimant had to produce three 
finished patterns for each season and the prize ones became the 
property of the Society, £15 17s. 6d. being reserved for any 
contingent Expenses which may attend this Attempt at pro- 
moting the Art of Design. Awards were regularly made until 
the competitions were discontinued in 1796. 

Some of the competitors are mentioned with special distinc- 
tion. Thus, Mr. Thomas Ramsay, who got £10 in 1766, had 
with “ great Application ” acquired “ extraordinary skill in 
inventing and drawing Patterns for the Printers of Linen and 
Cottons. In 1788 Mr. James Gibby, the winner of the £15 
premium in both sections, was specially referred to as trained 
in the Society’s Schools under the late Mr. James Mannin, and 
Messrs. Comerford and O’Brien even asked specially for a loan 
of two of his patterns. The rule of the Society was, however, 
that manufacturers could inspect designs and make copies, but 
not take them away. Nor were the prize patterns the only ones 
stocked by the Society. In 1766 Mr. James Mannin, Master of 
their School for Ornamental Drawing, is mentioned as providing 
designs, including ones for printed linen, “ pursuant to his 
agreement to the Society. In 1788 special permission was 
given for some of his latest linen and cotton patterns to be lent 
for one week to the Right Hon. Lord Valentia.^® 

The subject of design has been dealt with here at some length, 
but it must be remembered that it played a very important part 
in the industry. It is well to realise that, while Oberkampf 
employed J. B. Huet and other artists of the day in France, 
the Dublin Society were doing their best to supply Irish manu^ 
facturers with good models. The Society’s help, however, was 
not confined to pattern drawing. When, after 1750, the Irish 
Parliament was able to allot some of the credit balance to the en- 
couragement of Irish Industries, it was mainly done through the 
Society, and a considerable portion of the total grant of about 
£8,000 went to assist the development of printing or stamping 
linens and cottons. Thus, in 1756 Grant and Ashworth received 
£500 each from this fund,^® but it was during the years 1764 to. 

11 Ibid. Premium List, 1787, p. 14. 

12 Ibid. Jan. 30, 1766. 

13 Dub. Soc. Proc., 28 Feb., 1788 ; 6 Mar., 1788. 

14 Ibid. 16 Dec., 1766. 

15 Ibid. 20 Mar., 1788. 

16 Pue’s Occurrences, 15 June, 1756. 


1770 that premiums were awarded on a percentage basis (not 
exceeding 10%) on the total value of printed work sent in by 
the competing manufacturers. Even in 1764 separate premiums 
were awarded for work from wood blocks and for work from 
copper plates.^*^ 

In 1769 they were confined to productions on linens or cottons 
of Irish Manufacture suitable for Furniture or Garments only.^® 
After 1770 these premiums were discontinued, as it was thought 
that the printing side of the industry got sufficient encourage- 
ment through the general grants of the Linen Board. Small 
premiums were offered again in 1781, etc., but were only for 
plain printed cottons with dark or coloured grounds.^® It would 
be tedious to quote the premium lists in full, and the principal 
awards are referred to elsewhere in the text, but the totals given 
for some of the years make interesting reading. Thus, between 
June and November, 1764, the printing work done by the ten 
competing manufacturers amounted to “ 425,600 yards of Linen 
and Cotton, 2,860 doz. of Linen and Cotton Handkerchiefs, 124 
Coverlets, 12 doz. of Chair Backs and Bottoms, and 192 yards 
of Bordering for ditto,” value £9,065, premium total £339 10s. 
Between November, 1764, and November, 1765, about ” 939,518 
yards of Linen or Cotton, 24,103 dozens of Linen or Cotton 
Handkerchiefs and 105 Coverlets,” value £20,429, premiums 
£800, were done by 14 competitors; and between June and 
November, 1766, “ 556,563 yards of Linen or Cotton, 9,087 
dozens of Linen or Cotton Handkerchiefs and 18 Coverlets,” 
value £13,145 Os. 3d., premiums £300, by 13 competitors.^^ 
Totals of the materials printed are not given for the other 
years and, of course, these figures only represent the output of 
claimants to premiums, but in the absence of other evidence,, 
they are of some value. Indeed, it is the lack of any survey 
(such as was taken in France in 1806), or of any other fairly 
full source of information, which makes it impossible to give a 
complete account of the industry in Ireland. With references 
gleaned from such incidental sources as directories, premium.^ 
lists, newspapers, etc., it is only possible to show that a certain 
amount of printing was actually done, and to conclude that 
there were probably other printers at work for whom no evidence 
has so far been found. 

17 Dub. Soc. Proc., 15 Nov., 1764. 

18 Ibid. 2 Feb., 1769. 

19 Ibid. 15 Nov., 1781. 

20 Ibid. 29 Nov., 1764. 

21 Ibid. 13 Feb., 1766 ; 26 Feb., 1767. 

:J2 royal society of antiquaries of IRELAND 

The earliest reference at all connected with Ireland occurs 
in a Signet Office Paper dated 1693, recommending the petition 
of John Ponsand and David Cossart, and setting forth their 

extraordinary invention of staining and printing all colours on 
all manners of linen, calicos, etc., never found out in our 
Kingdom of Ireland. ”22 Ponsand and Cossart may possibly have 
been refugees hoping for opportunities in Ireland similar to 
those which enabled Cabannes to start work at Richmond in 
1690; but there is no evidence that their project ever 

So far as can be ascertained, one of the first manufactures 
which really started to work in Ireland was that established with 
the help of the Trustees of the Linen Board at Ballsbridge in 
1727. As early as 1719 they had inquired “ on what terms a 
good Printer and Stainer may be had from England,” but 
nothing more appears in their proceedings till 1727, when they 
granted Daniel Chappell’s petition for £28 18s. 6|d. to enable 
him to purchase and cut timber for prints and grounds. More- 
over, they leased and fitted up some lands and buildings for him 
at Ballsbridge, and were prepared to help with the wages of a 
print-cutter from England. In return Chappell was to dye linen 
yarn and “ to set up his Printing press, and all other conveni- 
ences for printing Linen Cloth.” A little later he was given 
£20 for taking on Philip and Joseph Chappell as apprentices, but 
he seems to have been very incompetent, and there were com- 
plaints about his w^ork. Finally, in 1735, the Board decided 
that they had paid enough and would “do no more for him 
or for encouraging his manufacture.”^® 

Fortunately, however, the Irish linen printing industry was 
not entirely dependent on Chappell’s efforts. There is evidence 
to show that there were at least two other early concerns, 
although the actual information about them comes from later 
sources. Thus, when. Samuel Grant presented his petition for 
Parliamentary aid in 1763, he stated that his father had come 
from England and settled near Dublin about 1715, and not only 
introduced “ the Art of Stamping, Staining and Dyeing Linens 
in imitation Callicoes ” (Indian Cloths), but carried on that 
business for several years and until his death. Samuel Grant 
then explains that he had himself been brought up in the busi- 

22 Record Office, London. Signet Office Papers, I 13 1 11. 

23 Precedents and Abstracts from the Journals of the Trustees of 
lire Linen Manufactures of Ireland. Dublin, 1784. pp. 34, 85-89, 105 
and 140. 

X Localities where one or more printing works are recorded. 




ness, and had gone abroad to visit various factories in order to 
study certain improvements, and to bring back skilled workmen. 
This induced the Trustees of the Linen Manufacture to provide 
him with a place at Ballsbridge (probably that originally leased 
for Chappell) which they allowed him to hold rent-free for several 
years, and on which he expended over £5,000 on buildings and 
utensils — leaden cisterns, copper-pans, prints and stamps, etc. 
As a result of his petition in 1755 he had been allotted the sum 
of £500, and so had continued to visit foreign factories, and 
moreover, had occasionally taken workmen over and got leave 
for them to wwk abroad “ for their improvement.” 

Grant then gives some account of his productions, which, it 
seems worth while to quote in full. ” That the Petitioner is 
the first person who first introduced here said Art of executing 
Patterns and Fabrics in Imitation of Chintz, and his works 
therein are allowed to be as highly finished in respect of Beauty, 
Wear and Retention of Colours, as any imported into this 
Kingdom. And the Petitioner likewise first introduced into 
Ireland the Manner of stamping silk Handkerchiefs after the 
Indian Manner, in wKich last Article alone there is now made 
in and sold in and out of the City and Suburbs of Dublin, 
upwards of £20,000 worth yearly, and this season hath wrought 
in different Linens, Cottons, Muslins and Cambricks, of which 
last he had wrought off more this Season than for seven years 
before, to the value of £30,000 sterling, and upwards; and can 
affirm that there has been £10,000 worth of Goods of his 
Manufacture exported in one year out of this Kingdom. That 
the Petitioner employs 108 Persons and upwards on said 
Business, immediately under himself and within his said Con- 
cern, besides Millwrights, Carpenters and Smiths, who 
occasionally work at home and abroad for him.” Of course. 
Grant’s statement about the perfection of his goods was one 
made by all manufacturers of the period, but the sum he quotes 
for the sale of handkerchiefs is amazing, when the total popula- 
tion of Dublin in 1763 is considered. The interest of his export 
figures will appear in relation to that question in general. 

The remainder of the petition consists of a summary of his 
claims for Parliamentary aid. It includes a description of the 
damage to his stock and buildings by flood in October, 1762, 
and October, 1763, amounting to £600 and £100, respectively, 
and a reiteration of those expenses incurred in experiments, etc., 
undertaken to improve the standard of the manufacture. Finally, 
he claims that his improvements “ hath recommended his 
Works to foreign Markets,” and that if he receives support he 


will be able to carry on the manufacture “ to such Extent and 
Perfection as will occasion a greater home Consumption, and 
considerably add, by foreign sale, to the Income and advantage 
of Ireland/’^* 

A later reference reports that the allegations of his petition 
were proved. But on account of the aid he had received, in 
later years the Dublin Society only allowed him to have his 
proportion of the premium money calculated on half the total 
value of his printed work. Grant’s output, however, heads the 
premium list for total value from 1764 to 1769,^® being over 
£4,000 worth even for the half year 1764, over £8,100 in 1765 
and 1769, and more than £9,000 in 1767. He died intestate 
in 1776, but must have carried on his business up to the time of 
his death for his daughter, Sarah Coghlan, complied with 
various legal formalities, etc., in order to take over the admin- 
istration of his property. 

The other important factory was at Palmerstown, and again 
the principal source of information is a petition presented by 
Mrs. Mary Knabbs and preserved in the Dublin Society Minutes 
for March, 1762. Several points, however, are made clearer by 
newspaper notices, for although Mary Knabbs refers to a dispute, 
neither she nor Samuel Grant mention in their petitions that 
they were brother and sister. The newspapers not only record 
the sudden death of Mrs. Mary Wheatly, “ who carried on a 
great Linen and Printing Business at Palmerstown ” in 1753, 
but show that John Grant and John and Mary Knabbs strongly 
resented Samuel Grant’s action in taking out letters of adminis- 
tration “ by surprise. A settlement was eventually made, 
mostly in favour of Mary Knabbs and her husband, but the real 
interest of the notices lies in revealing that the early works 
referred to by Samuel Grant, as having been erected by his 
father, must have been the original establishment at Palmers- 

In her petition Mary Knabbs gives a particularly full account, 
almost covering the Irish industry in general, and including 
evidence from outside witnesses. She begins by stating that 
her father built the works about 42 years earlier (i.e., about 

24 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 11 Nov., 1763, pp. 407-408. 

25 Ibid. 15 Nov., 1763, p. 435. 

26 Dub. Soc. Proc. 29 Nov., 1764, Premium £85 13s. 0|d. 13 Feb.. 
1766, Premium £158 10s. 5^d. 26 Feb., 1767, Premium £78 14s. 4id. 25 
Feb., 1768, Premium £172 3s. 8Jd. 9 Feb., 1769, Premium £26 9s. O^d. 
15 Feb., 1770, Premium £27 Os. 6d. 

27 Pue’s Occurrences, 14, 17, 21 and 24 Ap., also 26 May, 1753. 


1720) and was the first to do that kind of business in Ireland, 
etc., and that after his death it was carried on by her mother 
(who apparently married again). Mary Knabbs then explains 
how she took over the property when her mother died and how 
she now employs 80 to 100 men. 

That “ Her Business increases and in order to prove it, pro- 
duced an account of the Linens she had printed from the year 
1755, inclusive. Has now above 7,000 pieces already brought 
in for the beginning of this Season. There has not been so great 
an Importation of foreign linens, as before the erection of this 
Work. Can’t tell if these kinds of printed linens were imported 
before this Work was set up ; but if at all believes by very small 
quantities. She only got a fourth division of her Mother’s effects 
at her death and purchased part of the utensils from her 
Brothers with the £600 before mentioned. She works for her 
Employees, not for herself; and her Green can work a great deal 
more than she has to do. She turns about £8,000 a year in 
her Business. Others have got Publick Money, but she never 
got any.” 

The evidence of the various witnesses follows. The first, Mr. 
Daniel Simpson, stated that the 20 acres on which the works 
were situated were leased from him, and that he had known the 
family for about 30 years. When there was a dispute among 
the children about the place they applied to him for it ; he con- 
sulted with various dealers in linen and they recommended Mrs. 
Knabbs as the ” properest person,” capable of carrying on the 
business with “spirit and vigour.” The next witness, Mr. 
Lewis Laurent, was a dealer, and therefore able to give more 
detailed evidence. He also declared that he had known the 
family for over 30 years and was sure that they were the first 
to perfect the manufacture in Ireland, as before they came the 
only kind of this work done was upon “ Wax- Work ” — an 

interesting piece of information. He had dealt with Mrs. 
Knabbs for 8 years — since her mother’s death — and with her 
parents for about 28 years before that. He got her to print 
6,000 or 7,000 pieces a year for him and never imported 
chintzes. In fact, he thought that hardly a yard now came in, for 
eacih piece that had been imported before this work was started, 
and that the prints were as well done here as in England. As 
much as £1,100 had been paid for printing in the last year by 
all the printers. 

28 A pattern was made by applying a “ resist ” of wax to certain 
parts of the fabric to protect them from the action of the dye. The 
resist could then be washed off. 


Mr. Edward Braughall, who also had business experience, 
was another witness. He agreed with Laurent’s statements and 
went on to say that when he first worked as an apprentice 35 
years earlier, the dealers imported all their printed goods from 
Holland — mainly by smuggling, but some also in the ordinn,ry 
way ! As a dealer himself, he could state that now, instead of 
importing, he exports many pieces abroad, for instance, has 
£400 worth at present in Spain. He then produced an account 
of the cottons and linens printed for him by Mrs. Knabbs since 
the year 1754, inclusive, amounting to the sum of £2,275 10s. 
8d., and said that she printed more than any two yards in 
Ireland. Her work equalled any imported and she did whatever 
patterns were most in demand. According to him about 10,000 
people were employed each year by this kind of manufacture 
in Ireland. Mrs. Knabbs’ work was so esteemed, that many 
linens were sent to her from Cork to print. Specially questioned 
on this point, Mrs. Knabbs replied that she did a great deal of 
work for Cork, and particularly for Moses Newsome and Abel 
Fuller. Braughall then concluded with the statement that she 
did the same kind of prints in wood, that were done at Drum- 
condra on copper, “ So well that you would not distinguish 
them,” and that the demand was so great that if she had a 
fund she could employ £10,000 a year in the work. 

The evidence finally closed with that of Patrick Ewing, who 
said that he knew her parents when they first printed goods 
and had dealt with them 40 years ago. He was convinced that 
they were the first to do that business in Ireland, and remem- 
bered how her Father had printed in wax-work, before he worked 
in colours.^® 

Considering the trouble taken over her petition, it is pleasant 
to find that she did receive some aid, and that the Dublin Society 
finally allotted her £271 17s. 3d.®® This grant, moreover, did 
not prevent her from having her later premiums from the Society 
based on the full value of her output, which is given in the lists 
as about £1,800 in the half year 1764, and as high as £4,606 3s. 
4d. (premium £180 7s. 6^d.) in 1765 — the last year in which 

there is any reference to her work. 

These petitions have been quoted very fully because of the 
amount of information they contain concerning two of the 
earliest and most important factories. But there were other 

29 Dub. Soc. MS. Minutes, 15 Mar., 1762. 

30 Dub. Soc. Proc. 20 Ap., 1762. 

31 Ibid. 29 Nov., 1764 ; 13 Feb., 1766 


fairly early centres at work, even if some are only known 
from isolated references in newspapers. Thus, in 1742 “ John 
Fisher from London and Joseph Chappell ” (perhaps Daniel 
Chappell’s apprentice) had a printing house at Rathfamham. 
According to their advertisement they alone were able to print 
in china blue, as well as the usual reds and purples (probably 
manganese purple) like other printing yards. 

There is more evidence, however, about several of the factories 
which were certainly working in the middle of the century. One 
of the most interesting of these was at Donnybrook, and even 
in 1753 Thomas Ashworth was advertising his “ Donnybrook 
Papers for hanging Rooms ” as printed to match his “ Chintz 
Patterns for Furniture in the Cotton and Linen Way.”^^ He 
was among the petitioners of 1755 who received a grant of 
£500,®^ and when he died his business was carried on by his 
widow, Margaret Ashworth. According to her petition in 1763 
her husband had been the only person in Ireland to combine 
the printing of wall papers with that of house furnishings, but 
that she also was ready to print papers to match any pattern 
or colour in furniture coverings. Like Grant’s at Ballsbridge, 
her works had suffered from the floods in 1762 ; nevertheless, she 
was still prepared to execute orders 20% cheaper than they 
could be imported. She claimed that a bounty to enable her 
to extend her business would be a public benefit, etc., and it 
was proposed to give her aid.^® For this reason, like Grant 
and Sisson, in the later awards of the Dublin Society, she was 
only allowed to receive a reduced proportion of the premium 
money, calculated on half the value only of her printed goods. 
But the whole value of her output ranks fairly high in the 
premium lists,®® being given as about £1,500 worth in the years 
1764, 1766, 1769, and over £3,000 in 1765 and 1767. Her name 
is not given in the Directories till 1777, but appears regularly 
from that year till 1793. 

Another important factory was managed by the Sissons at 
Lucan. It must have been working prior to 1757, for in the 
November of that year Jonathan Sisson asked for Parliamentary 
aid to enable him to extend and improve the business, etc. His 

32 Faulkner’s Journal, 8 Jan., 1742. 

33 Universal Advertiser, 20 Oct., 1753. 

34 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 12 Mar., 1756, p. 628. 

35 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 2 Nov., 1763, p. 378, and 
15 Nov., 1763, p. 434. 

33 Dub. Soc. Proc., 29 Nov., 1764 ; 13 Feb., 1766 ; 26 Feb., 1767 ; 25 
Feb., 1768 ; 15 Feb., 1770. 


petition is not recorded in detail, but was certainly successful, 
as he received £500 “ to reimburse him for the Expenses' he 
has been at in repeated Trials, in order to bring the Manufacture 
of printing Linen to a further Perfection.®'^ He was the third 
proprietor to get a bounty, and for that reason (like Grant and 
Mrs. Ashworth) in later premiums from the Dublin Society 
could only receive half as much in proportion as the other manu- 

One of the immediate uses to which he put the money is 
apparent from the following advertisement in January, 1758.®® 

Jonathan Sisson, of Lucan, in Co. of Dublin, Linen-printer, 
having lately been granted, by Parliament, the sum of £500 
to assist in extending that Branch of Business, wants for carry- 
ing into Execution his further Designs, two good Cutters of 
Prints, capable of drawing and altering Patterns, from foreign 
Originals. If such will apply to said Sisson, at Lucan, they 
will immediately be employed to their Satisfaction.” This refer- 
ence to ” foreign originals ” (probably French or Dutch) 
certainly implies that many of the Lucan designs must have 
resembled the imported stuffs — a further difficulty in any case 
of identification. 

According to the Directories there was a town depot at 
Turner’s, College Green, as well as the Lucan establishment, 
but Jonathan Sisson’s name does not appear till the years 
1762-64. After that the firm is regularly entered under the 
various members of the family until 1800 — William Sisson, 
1765-67; Jonathan (probably a son) and Jacob Sisson, 1769-1784, 
and Jacob Sisson alone, 1785-1800. The only other evidence 
comes from the Dublin Society Premium lists, and though no 
account occurs of the members employed, etc., judging from 
the output, the factory must have been one of the largest, in 
William Sisson’s time, anyway, when it usually ranked next to 
Grant’s. Thus William Sisson got premiums ®® on half the 
value of manufactures amounting to about £2,000 in 1764; 
£4,000 in 1765, and about £2,000 again in the years 1766 and 
1767. All this was for wood-block printing, to which the busi- 
ness was almost entirely devoted, although one year, 1765, he 
also got £16 7s. 3d. for copper-plate work valued at £163 12s. 

37 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 7, 8 and 11 Nov., 1757, pp. 
101, 108 and 124. 

38 Universal Advertiser, 24 Jan. ; 7 Feb., 1758, etc. 

39 Dub. Soc. Proc., 29 Nov., 1764 ; 13 Feb., 1766 ; 26 Feb., 1767 ; 25 
Feb., 1768. 

w Ibid. 5 Dec., 1765. 


So far these petitions, etc., have mostly related to works using 
wood-blocks, but textile printing by means of copper-plates was 
also done in Ireland at an early date, for that technique. The 
process is usually supposed to have been first developed in 
Holland, but it is just possible that it partly originated in 
Ireland — as will be seen from Thompson’s and Dixon’s accounts. 
It was certainly adopted in England by 1765, but was not used 
at Jouy till about 1770, when it was introduced through the 
agency of the Scotchman, Thomas Bell, and there further 

Anyway, linens printed in Ireland from metal, or copper- 
plates, were on sale in Dublin at least as early as October, 1752, 
the date of the following advertisement.^^ “ Drumcondra 
printed Linens, done from Metal Plates (a method never before 
practised) with all the Advantages of Light and Shade, in the 
strongest and most lasting colours, and considerably encowaged 
by the Hon. the Trustees of the Linen Manufacture of this 
Kingdom, to be sold at Moderate Prices, and for ready Money, 
by George Gibbins, at the Hen and Chickens in Werburgh 
Street, Dublin.” 

In the December of 1752 the famous Mrs. Delany wrote to 
her sister, ” Burke made me go with her to Drumcondra^, half 
a mile off, to see a new manufactory that is set up there of 
printed linens done by copper-plates, they are excessively pretty, 
but I will not describe them as I hope to bring you a small 
sample next Summer. According to a later advertisement 
in 1754, this Drumcondra factory had a warehouse ” in, George’s 
Hill, opposite to the Glass-house in Mary’s Lane and near the 
Linen Hall.” There was sold wholesale, ” Linens, cottons, 
lawns and cambrics printed from Engraved Metal Plates in the 
newest and most elegant Patterns and in beautiful and lasting 
Colours, fit for Women’s Gowns, Men’s Waistcoats, Covers of 
Chairs, Screens and Hangings, the printing and engraving of 
wKich are executed by the ablest Artists that can be procured 
at Paris — To avoid Imposition Drumcondra goods are dis- 
tinguished by a Print at each end of the Pieces representing His 
Majesty’s Arms in the Centre, the Figure of Hibernia with the 
Attributes on one Side, a Cypher on the other and underneath 
the name Drumcondra in large letters. N.B. — Proper encour- 
agement will be given to those who buy for Exportation.”^® It 

Faulkner’s Journal, 3 Oct., 1752. 

42 Autobiography and Correspondence of Mrs. Delany Ed. Lady 
Llanover. London, 1861. Vol. III., p. 180. 

43 Faulkner’s Journal, 23 Nov., 1754. 


so happens that this is the earliest description of an identifica- 
tion mark for the wares of an Irish factory (though Blarney, and 
presumably other places had their own), and it would be 
interesting if ever an example should be found bearing this 

There is some difficulty in ascertaining the founders of this 
Drumcondra business, but they were probably Theophilus 
Thompson and Francis Nixon, who are described as the “ Pro- 
prietors of the Printing Manufacture at Drumcondra ” in their 
petition in 1755, when they sought aid to get “ additional Hands 
and Machines, to carry on the Manufacture of impressing Figures 
upon Linen, a Method never practised in any other country, nor 
yet known to any Person, except the Petitioners.^'^ Of course 
allowance must be made for the usual exaggeration of the period, 
but there is corroborative evidence from another source. Samuel 
Dixon, of Leixlip, in his petition of 1763, explains “ that the 
Method of impressing Linens from Copper-plates was originally 
invented by the Proprietors of the late Manufactory at Drum- 
condra, near Dublin, and tho’ at that Time they were unable 
to give more than a single Colour to the Linens, yet the 
Manufacture grew into such immediate Repute that the Pro- 
prietors were prevailed on, by large Sums, to transfer the 
Manufacture to another Kingdom.*® Indeed it would seem that 
Thompson and Nixon really did evolve some idea of importance 
in relation to printing by means of copper plates, and the 
transfer to “ another Kingdom ” (probably England) would 
explain the absence of their names in later references. That 
this departure took place about 1757 is indicated by notices in 
the Universal Advertiser of that year announcing the sale of 
“ the remaining Part of the Drumcondra printed Goods, consist- 
ing of Linens, Cottons and Lawns for Gowns, large Hangings, 
Chair-covers and Window-curtains,” at a reduction of 15/- in 
the pound.*® 

Presumably stimulated by the example of Drumcondra, other 
places in Dublin were quick to adopt similar methods. Thus, 
the Universal Advertiser for February 25th, 1758, has the 
following notice, ” The proprietors of a manufacture now 
established at Temple-Oge for printing, on a new principle. 
Linens, Lawns, etc., from Mezzo tinto, copper Plates, think it 
necessary to advertise the merchants and shop-keepers, that all 

Journals of Irish House of Commons, 3 Nov., 1755, pp. 506-507. 

45 Ibid. 1 Nov., 1763, p. 374. 

46 Universal Advertiser, 15 Mar., 1757 ; 1 May, 1757, etc. 


goods intended for this manufacture, will be received by Mr. 
Francis Sandys, linen-draper, at the Golden Eagle in Bridge 
Street, where the terms of printing and further particulars may 
be known — superior colours used — stand washing unhurt. Only 
goods the property of a merchant or shop-keeper accepted, to 
be sent soon for sale in the ensuing Summer.” It appears 
from a Petition of 1759 that Francis Donovan and John 
Collins were also associated in the business, and according to the 
Dublin Society the work was of a high standard. Thus the 
minutes for March, 1759, report that Sandys “ shewed the 
Society Linens stamp’d very Curiously with Copper-plates, done 
at his Manufactory at Temple Oge, as well done as those Linens 
stamped at Drumcondra, Leixlip, etc., or rather better,” and 
that he deserved encouragement. 

No more, however, is heard of Francis Sandys and apparently 
his enterprise was of short duration, but fortunately there is a 
good deal of information about the contemporary copper-plate 
printing works at Leixlip, probably the most important of the 
kind in Ireland. Once more it is a newspaper which supplies an 
approximate date of foundation, for the following insertion 
appears in the Universal Advertiser of June 10th, 1758. 

” Samuel Dixon & Co., beg leave to inform the Publick, that 
they are now carrying on a Manufactory at Leixlip, for printing 
with Copper-plates on Linens, Cambricks, Lawns, Cottons, etc., 
in a Manner entirely new — Their Flowers are exactly designed 
from Nature, and will answer all the ends of Patterns to the 
Ladies, for their Amusement in Working and Drawing, etc.” 
The same patronage was hoped for as had been given to 
” previous performances especially in flowers,” and all orders 
were to be received at Dixon’s Picture Ware-House in Capel 
Street, or at the factory at Leixlip. This Samuel Dixon was a 
w'ater-colour artist who had made quite a reputation for his 
flower and bird-pieces done in bas-relief — the design being 
impressed from the back with copper-plates and afterwards 
coloured by hand. He was thus one of the few Irish artists, 
now known by name, who can be definitely connected with the 
industry, and his previous experience must have helped him in 
the various technical improvements which he introduced at the 
works and which were commended by the Dublin Society in 
1759.^® He may have been helped by his brother, John Dixon, 
the mezzo-tint engraver, who did not go to London till 1765.*® 

47 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 6 Nov., 1759, p. 360. 

43 Dub. Soc. MS. Minutes, 1 Nov., 1759. 

49 Dictionary of Irish Artists. W. Strickland. Dublin, 1913 Vol. 
1, p. 280. 


According to the Petition presented in 1759 the other proprietors 
were Thomas Taylor and Walter Johnston, but although the 
factory was then declared to deserve a grant, no award was 
actually made. 

It is a later petition, that of 1763,®^ which really gives some 
idea of the progress made at Leixlip during the first few years 
of its existence. In it the petitioners, Dixon and Taylor, explain 
that although copper-plate printing for linen originated at Drum- 
condra (as already quoted), they were now the only people to 
use the method in Ireland. Moreover, that they “ have 
contrived a new Method of adding to the Beauty and Expression 
of the said Art, by imitating and fixing not only the natural 
Colours of all Animals, Fruit, Flowers and Foliage, etc., but that 
they can now effectually imitate and represent on Linens, in 
their natural Delineations and Colouring, all manner of Figures, 
representing Portraiture and History, as also Landscape and 
Architecture in due Proportion and Perspective and those Colours 
endure both the Bleach and the Wash without Change or Decay, 
as by a Variety of Specimens may appear. That the Petitioners 
took a Concern at Leixlip, Co. Kildare, in 1758, for three lives, 
renewable for ever, whereon they have expended in Buildings, 
Machines, etc., upwards of £7,000, exclusive of other consider- 
able Expenses attending a Variety of Experiments to complete 
the same — they have already finished upwards of 500,000 Yards 
of the said impressed Linens .... have taught and constantly 
retained from 40 to 50 Girls, many of whom are not 9 years 

old, in chintzing and Pencilling said Linens, Lawns, etc 

a new constructed Machine, with which they can finish off 300 
yards in a Day, hath enabled the Petitioners to execute their 
Work at so small a Profit that the Traders therein can bring 
them very cheap to Market.” The petition, of course, concludes 
by laying stress on the benefit of the works to Ireland in general, 
by keeping money in the country, etc., and claiming that a grant 
to extend the factory so as to cope with the demands on it, was 
particularly deserved, since the award of 1759 never materialised. 
Despite a favourable report on this petition, Dixon did not get 
any special grant in aid. In fact, the only award that he seems 
ever actually to have received was £98 Is. 3d. — the ordinary 
premium at 10% for having printed 32,595 yards, valued at 
£980 12s. 5d., between June and November, 1764.®^ Financially 
the concern was not successful, and closed soon after this date. 

50 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 9 Nov., 1759, p. 365. 

51 Ibid. 1 Nov., 1763, pp. 374-375. 

52 Dub. Soc. Proc., 29 Nov., 1764. (The only premium awarded for 
copper-plate work that year.) 


when Dixon went to London and kept a picture shop there for 
some years.®® 

It is possible that Dixon’s works were taken over by George 
Moore, a Dublin merchant, since his name first appears as an 
independent proprietor among the petitioners of 1765 as “ pray- 
ing Aid and Encouragement in the Art of Printing Linens from 
engraved Metal Plates by him carried on at Leixlip.®* In the 
December of that year he received a premium of £55 5s. Id. 
for work done there between November, 1764, and November, 
1765, and valued at £552 Is. 4d.^® But he also found his funds 
unequal to the undertaking, as he explained when asking for a 
loan from the Dublin Society in January, 1766.®® It was then 
proposed to lend him the sum of £200, but as there is no later 
reference to his business, it would seem that his venture into 
linen printing must have ceased sometime about the year 1767. 

Nevertheless, copper-plate printing was continued at Leixlip 
for at least another decade or so, through the firm of Harpur 
and Cunningham. Nor does it seem unreasonable to suppose 
that they took over Moore’s establishment, since the first refer- 
ence to their output applies to the year 1768. Thus’ they 
received the only premiums (£33 12s. and £50) for copper-plate 
work done in 1768 and 1769 as well as a small award for wood- 
block printing done in the former year.®"^ The death of Nathaniel 
Cunningham, “ Proprietor of the Leixlip Linen Printing and 
Stamping Manufactory,” is so recorded in 1781,®® but Thomas 
Harpur carried on the business alone for another few years. In 
1786 it was put up to auction by his assignees and, according to 
their notice, the grounds were large and the buildings well stocked 
with copper-plate machines, block-printing tables, ready cut 
wooden prints and engraved metal plates, etc., all to let for 
£80 a year.®® 

Edward Clarke’s factory — known only from information in 
newspapers — is really the most interesting one from a practical 
point of view. From it comes the only authenticated specimen 
of Irish textile printing that has so far been located — the ” Vol- 
unteer Furniture ” of which there are examples in the National 
Museum, Dublin, the First Volunteer Masonic Lodge of Ireland 

53 Diet, of Irish Artists. Walter Strickland. Dublin, 1913, Vol. L 
p. 289. 

54 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 16 Nov., 1765, p. 102. 

Dub. Soc. Proc., 5 Dec., 1765. 

56 Ibid. 16 Jan. and 6 Mar., 1766. 

5-7 Ibid. 9 Feb., 1769, and 6 Feb., 1770. 

58 Faulkner’s Journal, 19 June, 1781. 

59 Dub. Ev. Post, 8 July, 1786. 

Plate IV.] 

1'1\) face pa^e 44. 

[Photo. Anlill. 

“ Volunteer Furniture,” re])iesenting- tlie provincial review in the Phoenix 
Park, May, 1783. Printed from copper-plates as advertised by Edward Clarke 
in Nov., 1783 (see pp. 44-5). This photograph was taken from the specimen in 
the possession of the First Volunteer Masonic Lodge of Ireland, and by their 
kind permission. The piece has been carefully preserved, and the colouring 
(mainly purple) is in almost the same condition as when it left the printing- 



and the Royal Irish Society of Antiquaries. The history of the 
specimens and their military aspect have already been dealt 
with by Mr. MacDowel Cosgrave in a previous number of the 
Antiquaries’ Journal.®® But it was Mr. Dudley Westropp who 
discovered a notice in the Dublin Evening Post for November 
25th, 1783, specially advertising this particular “ representation 
of the last Provincial Review in the Phoenix Park,” and so 
definitely proving that the specimens are copper-plate products 
from Clarice’s Warehouse in Werburgh Street. Mr. Westropp 
also made the suggestion that B Granger may have been the 
designer, since the drawing of the trees resembles his work, and 
he is known to have been in Ireland at that period — a period 
when French and Italian artists were much in favour here. 
Apart, however, from this question, the specimens have a unique 
technical interest. They alone at present exist to show what 
was produced by this type of industry in Ireland, and though 
they are printed on a linen and cotton mixture, they help to 
give some idea of what must have been done at an earlier date, 
at factories such as Dixon’s or Mrs. Knabbs’, when the use of 
pure linen was in vogue. Indeed, the ” Volunteer Furniture ” 
compares very favourably with work of the same date, even from 
Jouy, as can be seen from an examination of the pieces on view 
in the Musee des Beaux Arts in Paris. 

The only available details about Clarke’s activities are from 
his own newspaper notices; but his business seems to have been 
on a fairly large scale. According to his advertisements in 1779 
he then dealt only in Irish Stubs which he sold 10% under the 
usual prices at his Warehouse, No. 12 Werburgh Street. He 
specialised in ” Chintz, Purple, Red and Copper-plate Furniture 
Cottons and Linens,” each piece being clearly priced at the 
end and costing one-third less than those imported from 
England. In addition to stocking these goods from his own 
copper-plate printing place at Palmerstown, he got in materials 
from the other printing yards, so that country dealers and 
upholsterers, etc., could be sure of a good range to choose from. 
He also kept ” the greatest Variety of elegant Irish Chintz, for 
Ladies’ Wear. These notices appear for months, with 
but slight alterations.®^ Thus in October, 1780, he included. 

An Apprentice wanted; a lad of genteel connections will be 
taken on moderate terms,” but by 1783 the qualifications had 

60 Journal of Royal Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland. 1906, Vol. 35, 
pp. 60-63 ; 1922, Vol. 52, p. 175. 

61 Dub. Ev. Post, 28 Aug., 1779. 

62 Ibid. 19 Oct., 1780 ; 25 Nov., 1783, etc. 


become “ a lad who writes a good hand and understands 
accompts.” The 1783 notices also mention his modern and 
fashionable patterns received from ladies, “ friends to Irish 
Manufactures,” as w^ell as the special reference to the Volunteer 
Furniture with its ” striking likeness to Lord Charlemont ” and 
its portrayal ” of every pleasing object in and about the Fifteen 
acres,” etc. 

By the end of 1787 the business was on a still more ambitious 
scale, for ” Messrs. O’Brien and Comerfbrds, having brought 
to great perfection at their Factory at Balbriggan, the Manu- 
facture of Calicoes and Cottons, and Mr. Edward Clarke having 
rendered his Printing Works at Palmerstown very complete,” 
they associated under the firm of O’Brien, Comerfords and 
Clarkes ” for the purpose of carrying on the United Business of 
manufacturing and printing on an improved and extensive plan.” 
The town warehouse was on the Merchant’s Quay, and there 
wholesale buyers, etc., could have the advantage of the regular 
weekly deliveries from the works in Palmerstown ” of new 
patterns, as practised in London and Manchester.” The stock 
consisted of a ” large assortment of Garments and Furniture 
Callicoes, Cottons and Linens, mostly printed from Copper-plate 
Cylinders, and other new and expeditious Machinery.”®® This 
reference to the copper-plate cylinders is particularly valuable, 
since it shows that Clarke was using this further technical 
development soon after it became known in England, and before 
the reputed introduction at Jouy in 1797. 

Presumably the ” United Manufacturing and Printing Com- 
pany ” were fairly successful, for their advertisements continue 
for some years. In May, 1788, they announced as a special 
inducement that their draftsmen had been adjudged premiums 
by the Dublin Society for their new spring patterns, ” now 
delivering.” In June, 1789, they defined the deliveries as 
taking place on Wednesday and Saturday at 11 o’clock in the 
morning at 19 Merchant’s Quay. Later still they moved to 
No. 23, and had an additional delivery on Mondays. After 1793, 
however, the firm apparently ceased to advertise, and it is 
probably another Edward Clarke, whose name appears in the 
Directories as a Manufacturer and Calico Printer at 9 Merchant’s 
Quay, and other addresses, between 1800 and 1815. 

When Clarke joined with Comerford and O’Brien and retired 
to his works at Palmerstown, his old warehouse at 12 Werburgh 
Street was taken by Leonard & Labili^re, linen drapers. Though 

63 Dub. Ev. Post, 14 Dec., 1787, etc. 

64 Ibid. 10 May, 1788 ; 4 June, 1789 ; 30 July, 1793. 


not printers themselves, they carried on the traditions of the 
place and concentrated on the sale of house furnishings. In 
notices of 1788 Clarke recommended them as his successors, 
particularly for “ Copper-plate Furniture ” formerly sold for 
2/8 to 3/3 per yard and now selling for 2/2 to 2/6 per yard — 
one of the only statements to be found about prices.®® Accord- 
ing to their own advertisements ®® their stock came from the 
principal manufacturers and was “ mostly designed or approved 
by personages of the first consequence, distinguished as well for 
their taste as patriotic disposition to encourage the manufactures 
of the Kingdom.” Among the patrons in 1791 they claimed 
Lady Fitzgibbon and the Countess of Westmoreland, the latter 
having done some of their designs for use on her furnishings in 
Westmoreland House, in London. 

Nor was copper-plate printing confined to the immediate 
environs of Dublin. Thus both copper-plates and wood-blocks 
were used at Hugh Holmes’ linen and cotton manufacture at 
Richardstown, Co. Louth. There Holmes printed all kinds of 
chintz, black, red and purple work in addition to a variety of 
handkerchiefs. His first advertisements appear in Sleater’s 
Gazeteer from May, 1764, to February, 1766, and during that 
period he also kept a wholesale warehouse in Pill Lane, where 
his ” Book of Patterns ” — an unusual item — could be inspected 
as well as at Richardstown. According to later notices,®*^ in 
1766 he then proposed to let or sell the warehouse, and to reside 
entirely at Richardstown in order to give his full attention to the 
factory, and especially to the printing business. For this 
purpose he had not only ” erected a complete Machine for 
impressing Linen and Cotton from Copper Plates,” but had 
procured new engraved patterns from London and Dublin, and 
extra hands from England. Consequently he could also take 
in outside goods for printing. It was because of this expensive 
new machinery that he asked the Dublin Society in 1765 for a 
loan of £500.®® The request was refused, but he received 
premiums ®® for small quantities of copper-plate work in 1765 and 
1767, and for work from wood blocks in 1767 and 1768. No 
more is heard of him after 1768, and presumably his enterprise 
was another one of short duration. 

65 Dub. Ev. Post, 26 Ap., 1788. 

66 Ibid. 24 June, 1790 ; 10 Feb., 1791, etc. 

67 Sleater’s Gazeteer, 18 Mar., 1766. 

68 Dub. Soc. Proc., 19 Dec., 1765, and 23 Jan., 1766. 

69 Dub. Soc. Proc., 5 Dec., 1765, and 26 Feb., 1767 (copper-plates). 
26 Feb. 1767 and 25 Feb. 1768 (wood-blocks). 


There is evidence to show that there were printing establish 
ments of some kind as far from Dublin as Cork and Belfast. 
Comparatively little is known of the three Belfast firms (see list 
of printers), save that they were advertising in the last decade 
of the century, and that McCamon & Co. had “ Printfields ” at 
Strand-mills;'^® Joy, Holmes & McCracken at the Falls. The 
latter certainly used wood-blocks, for in 1795 they were anxious 
to sell some of the patterns cut from sycamore and holly — the 
best woods for block-printing. 

There is more information, however, to be found aoout the 
factory at Blarney, near Cork. In 1771, the proprietors, John 
Anderson and William Willisson, asked the Dublin Society to 
give special premiums to persons who should send Irish cottons, 
or cottons mixed with linen, to Blarney for printing; but the 
Society refused to arrange any such special awards. Still, 
several advertisements in 1773 show that Blarney fabrics were 
on sale at “ Mr. Ludowick Little’s in the Linen Hall-yard, 
Cork,” and that to avoid confusion with inferior goods, all pieces 
printed there were marked “ ANDERSON & WILLISSON, 
Blarney. According to Arthur Young in, 1766, the town and linen 
manufacture had been established since 1765 by Mr. Jeffreys. The 
concerns were leased to Cork Manufacturers and Mr. Jeffreys 
had added a stamping mill for printing linens and cottons. This 
mill (probably the one leased by Anderson & Willisson) had 
cost him £2,300, to which the Linen Board had added £300. 
It had been working for some years when Young saw it, and 
then employed 65 hands at 12 printing tables. The work was 
thus divided — 12 printers, 12 tire boys, 3 print-cutters, 12 
bleachmen, 6 pencillers, 2 tub-men, 1 clerk, 1 callender, 1 
manager, 2 draughtsmen, 4 coppermen, 3 carters.’* 

Robert Brooke’s cotton manufacture at Prosperous, Co. 
Kildare, has been described by Gill, and need only be briefly 
mentioned here. It did, however, include printing, and when 
Brooke asked Parliament in 1783 for a loan of £40,000 he stated 
it was in order to have more spinners and weavers to keep his 
dyers and printers fully occupied.'^® When Shefiheld wrote in 
1785, these printers at Prosperous got a guinea a week and up 

70 Northern Star, 5 Jan., 1*793 ; 31 Mar., 1797. 

71 Belfast News Letter, 26 Aug., 1791 ; 28 May, 1795. 

72 Dub. Soc. Proc., 12 and 19 Dec., 1771 ; 26 Mar., 1772. 

73 Hibernian Chronicle, 19 Ap. and 20 May, 1773. 

74 Arthur Young. Tour in Ireland, 1776-79. Ed. A. W. Hutton, 1892. 
Vol. I, pp. 312-14. 

75 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 3 Nov., 1783, p. 57, and 19 
Mar., 1784. 

Plate V.] 

[To face page 49. 

\rhoto. ArdilJ. 

Fk;. 1. — Enuravinc;, printed on silk, by W. N. (Gardiner (1776-1814), a 
PUPIL OF the Dublin Society’s Art School. Original design by 
4ean Francois Rk!aud, R.A. National Museum, Dublin. 


[Photo. AnUll. 


18th century. National Musettm, Dubijn. 


to 30/- if at task work."^® Although Brooke received £25,000 
from the Irish Parliament in 1783 and various concessions in 
succeeding years, he was not very successful and the whole 
business had failed by the end of the century. 

The last centre for which there is some information of interest 
was mainly devoted to work on calico. In 1787, William 
Worthington, a Dublin merchant, presented a petition to the 
Irish Parliament declaring that he had long carried on a linen 
and cotton printing business at Watergates, near the City. 
(The statement happens to be corroborated by a newspaper notice 
in 1777 when he had trouble with his workers)."^® Worthington 
then explains that the Irish-made calicoes only needed 
“ complete printing works ” to finish them, and for that reason 
he had contracted with the Corporation of Dublin for some 
grounds at Island Bridge, “ a most commodious place for carry- 
ing on the Calico Printing Business.” Moreover, that he had 
engaged a printer from England and had erected “ a compleat 
Printing Factory, with all the offices necessary thereto, at Island 
Bridge aforesaid.” This factory was to contain 20 printing 
tables, and these when fully occupied, would employ about 300 
people of different ages and sexes. His next statement explains 
the general concentration of textile printing works near Dublin; 
” the Callico Printing Business can be carried on better near the 
Capital than at a Distance therefrom, for the following reason; 
the Drapers, who reside mostly in the Capital, wish always to 
be near the Printing Grounds, to choose their Patterns, etc.” 
Finally, he declared that he had spent over £2,000 on buildings 
and utensils and that as his “ Callico Patterns ” were also suited 
to linens, his factory could be considered a national asset, 
especially if he got Parliamentary aid to enable him to extend 
it."^® There is no evidence that he received any help, but his 
petition at least clearly defines the importance of local printing 
works for Irish-made materials. 

Just as Ballsbridge was the site of one of the earliest works, 
so it was the site of one of the largest centres functioning in 
the last decades of the century, for Messrs. Duffy, Byrne and 
Hamill combined the processes of making, printing and selling 
their calico goods. According to advertisements in April, 1793, 
they had just extended their premises at Ballsbridge, and so 

76 Observations on Manufactures, etc., of Ireland. John Lord 
Sheffield. Dublin, 1785, p. 199. 

77 Conrad Gill. Rise of Irish Linen Industry, p. 230. 

78 Hibernian Journal, 20 June, 1777. 

79 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 1 Feb., 1787 pp 47-48. 




were enabled to have weekly deliveries of their “ new and 
elegant Printed Calicoes ” each Tuesday and Friday at the 
warehouses, 4 Usher’s Quay and 29 Bridge Street.®® The firm 
appears in the Directories from 1793 to 1812, and is one of the 
few printing concerns to be marked as wholesale merchants and 
so free of the 6% and 10% in the Custom House, Dublin. 

Here a brief reference is essential to the subject of exports. 
Until the restrictions on Irish trade were raised by the British 
Parliament in 1779, the opportunities for exporting Irish printed 
goods was somewhat limited. Up to that date there were pro- 
hibitory duties which kept “ checked, striped, printed, painted, 
stained or dyed linens of Irish manufacture ” out of England,®^ 
and this virtually included the Colonies, since Ireland could not 
trade directly with them prior to 1779. France and Holland 
had their own numerous factories, so that most of the export 
trade referred to in petitions must have been to Spain and 
Portugal or by way of smuggling. Indeed, in giving evidence 
for Mrs. Knabbs, Lewis Laurent definitely states that he sent 
his printed stuffs to Spain, and the Portuguese market was open 
till they prohibited the importation in 1781.®^ 

Even when more freedom of trade was allowed with England 
at the end of the century, it was too late for Irish printed stuffs 
to compete successfully in the market. Consequently, as by 
far the greatest proportion of the output was for home consump- 
tion, it is easy to sympathise with the “ Linen, Cotton and 
Callico Printers of the County and City of Dublin ” when they 
stated in 1778 “ that riotous mobs have often assembled to 
prevent the Consumption of their Manufactures, by cutting and 
otherwise destroying Garments even on the Wearers’ Backs.” 
Fortunately for their trade, they succeeded in getting the 
enactment they sought against such behaviour.®® 

The following list is an attempt to summarise all available 
information. Some of the manufacturers (presumably the most 
important) have been mentioned in the text, but there were 
others of whom little is known. Thus, some names just appear 
once or twice in premium lists ; a few are never referred to except 
in the indices to wills, others only in the Directories or in 

80 Dub. Ev. Post, 4 Ap., 1793. 

81 Arthur Young. Tour in Ireland, 1776-79. Ed. A. W. Hutton, 1892. 
Vol. II, p. 198. 

82 Observations on Manufactures, etc., of Ireland. John Lord 
Sheffield. Dublin, 1785, p. 327. 

83 Journals of Irish House of Commons, 4 Mar., 1778, p. 383, and 
1 July, 1778, p. 485. 


advertisements. Most of the dates are, therefore, approximate, 
and only indicate the years in which printing work is specifically 
mentioned in some way. This applies especially to the dates 
taken from Directories, because a business was often working 
for a number of years before the owner chose to pay the fee 
to have his name included. It must also be remembered that 
there were probably other textile printers whose names do not 
occur at all, owing to the incidental nature of the sources of 
information. However, the total number definitely known as 
working during the period amounts to about 70 printers on linen 
and cotton, etc., and 15 cotton and calico printers — the latter 
functioning only in the last decade and first few years of the 
next century. This total is not too insignificant when the 
population and circumstances of Ireland in the eighteenth' 
century are taken iuto consideration. Many of the concerns, 
of course, must have been small, just employing two or three 
workers; others are shown from petitions, etc., to have been 
fairly extensive. This, too, is very natural. At that time in 
France, Clouzot found evidence for about 400 manufacturers, 
but states that comparatively few of these were on a large 




In Dir. 




Premium, year of payment given. 

In Directories. 

Copper-plate printers in particular. 
Factories outside Dublin and suburbs. 
Goods marked at end of each piece. 

Unless otherwise stated, the dates of death are those given 
in the Index to Wills of the Diocese of Dublin, or the Index to 
Prerogative Wills of Ireland, but dates have only been quoted 
where linen, cotton or calico printer has been expressly 

Peter Adair, Exchequer St. c. 1780. (Dublin Gazette, 17 
Sept., 1782, as benefiting under “ Act for Relief of 
Insolvent Debtors.”) 

John Anderson and Son, Love Lane. In Dir. 1783-1805. 

Histoire de la Manufacture de Jouy et de la Toile imprim^e en 
France, Henri Clouzot. Paris, 1928, pp. 175-179. 


* M John Anderson and William Willisson, Blarney, Co. Cork, 
c. 1770-78. See p. 48. 

Margaret Ashworth, Donnybrook. c. 1760-93. Pet. 1763. 

Prs. 1764-1770. In Dir. 1777-93. See p. 38. 

Samuel Ashworth, Donnybrook. In Dir. 1786-88. 

Thomas Ashworth, Donnybrook. c. 1753-60. Husband 
of Margaret Ashworth. Pet. 1755. See p. 38. 
Thomas Ashworth, Donnybrook. In Dir. 1776. 

Michael Bardon, Miltown, Co. Dublin. Died intestate, 
c. 1800. 

Alexander Bourke. Died intestate, c. 1800. 

John Bradley, Dolphin’s Barn. In Dir. 1762-69. Prs. 
for work varying from £600 to £900 worth in value 
in the years 1764-70. 

* Robert Brooke, Prosperous, Co. Kildare. 1782-90. Pet. 

1783. See p. 48. 

Francis Brown, Marrow-bone Lane. In Dir. with Thomas 
Brown, 1771-72, and alone, 1773-75. 

George Brown, Rutland, near Harold’s Cross. In Dir. 

1791-97. (Also printed silks). 

Thomas Brown, Marrow-bone Lane. In Dir. 1762-90. 
Small Pr. 1768. (Also printed linen and silk hand- 

Thomas Burgess. Small Prs. 1766-70. 

Patrick Carty, New St. Died c. 1793. 

Daniel Chappell, Ballsbridge. Helped by Trustees of the 
Linen Manufacture, 1827-35. Ordered to take Philip 
Chappell and Joseph Chappell as apprentices in 1727, 
and Edward Beck in 1731. See p. 32. 

Joseph Chappell. Small Prs., 1768-70. Perhaps the 
Joseph Chappell apprenticed to Daniel Chappell in 
1727. Also see John Fisher and Joseph Chappell. 

X Edward Clarke, Palmerstown. c. 1779-93. See pp. 
44-46, and also under O’Brien, Comerford and Clarke. 

* William Constantine, Sign of the Hot Kalendar, opposite 

Linen Hall, Cork. c. 1773. (Cork Ev. Post, 8 Feb., 

James Delamer and John Dalton, near the Blue Belt, 1| 
miles from Dublin, c. 1738, “ lately arrived from 
London.” (Faulkner’s Journal, 13 Jan., 1738). 
Richard Dempsey. Died intestate, c. 1754. 

John Dillon, Brown St. In Dir. l’^0-94. 


X Samuel Dixon and Co. (Thomas Taylor and Walter 
Johnston), Leixlip and Capel St. c. 1758-65. Pet. 
1759. In Dir. 1762-65. Pr. 1764. See pp. 42-43. 
James Dogherty, Brown St. Prs. 1764-68. In Dir. 
1787-88, but perhaps another printer of the same 

William Donnellan, 50 Marrow-bone Lane. Small Pr. 
1768. In Dir. 1778-88. 

John Fisher from London, and Joseph Chappell, Rath- 
farnham-bridge, c. 1742. Did work in China blue, 
as well as Reds and Purples. (Faulkner’s Journal, 
8 Jan., 1742). See p. 38. 

Samuel Grant, Ballsbridge. c. 1730-1776. Pet. 1755 and 
1763. Prs. 1764-69. See pp. 32-35. 

X Thomas Harpur and Nathaniel Cunningham, Leixlip. c. 
1768-86. Prs. 1769-70. See p. 44. 

X * Hugh Holmes, Richardstown, Co. Louth. Ware-house in 
Pill Lane, Dublin, c. 1764-68. Small Prs. 1765-68. 
See p. 47. 

William Ingham, Palmerstown. Died intestate, c. 1777. 
John Johnson, Beggar’s Bush. Small Pr. 1764. 

* Joy, Holmes and McCracken, Rosemary Lane, Belfast. 

Printfield at the Falls, c. 1791-95. (Belfast News- 
Letter, 2 Aug., 1791; 6 Feb., 1795, etc.) See p. 48. 
Bartholomew Judge, James St. Prs. 1764-68. Died c. 

William Kelly and Co., 38 Sycamore Alley. In Dir., 

Mary Kennan, Ballsbridge. In Dir. 1791-93. 

Thomas Kirby, Rathfarnham. c. 1730-40 (in prison for debt 
1731-38. Dublin News Letter 21 Mar. and 19 Dec., 
1738). Died intestate, 1741. 

Mrs. Mary Knahbs, Palmerstown. c. 1753-66. Pet. 

1762. Prs. 1764 and 1766. See pp. 35-37. 

Mrs. Mary Lovely. Pr. 1767. 

Ginkin Lovely. Prs. 1768 and 1769. 

Martin Maryman, Cook St. c. 1768. (Finn’s Leinster 
Journal, 30 Mar., 1768). 

* George McCamon and Co., New Wholesale Cotton Ware- 

house, High St., and later, 7 Arthur St., Hel^^st. 
Printfield at Strand-Mills, c. 1793-97. (Northern 
Star, 5 Jan., 1793; 20 Ap., 1793; 31 Mar., 1797, 


Catherine Medcalfe, Dolphin’s Bam Lane. In Dir. 1790, 

: ' , and at 44 Marrow-bone Lane in 1791. 

Francis Medcalfe, Marrow-bone Lane and other addresses. 

: In Dir. 1786-89. 

, . Henry Medcalfe, 44 Marrow-bone Lane. In Dir. 1792- 

, i , Theophilus Medcalfe. Prs. 1765-70. Perhaps the same 
as the silk handkerchief printer of that name 
i mentioned in Dir. 1785-89. 

. ) John Mcllroy, Phoenix St. Died intestate, 1786. 

. , ! Mrs. Catherine Mooney. Pr. 1769. 

Joseph Mooney, Lucan, c. 1769. (Freeman’s Journal, 21 
Jan., 1769). 

Michael Mooney. Prs. 1766 and 1767. See Messrs. 

. James Russell. 

X Georoge Moore, Leixlip. Prs. 1765 and 1767. See p. 44. 
\i Peter O’Brien. Small Pr. 1766. 

, Messrs. O’Brien, Comerford and Clarice, Balbriggan, 
Palmerstown and Merchant’s Quay. c. 1787-93. 

■ 'I See p. 46. 

* William Pollock, Saunders Villa, Co. Wicklow, c. 1790. 

I , (Asks for help. Proceedings of Trustees of Linen 

Manufacture, 2 Feb., 1790). 

JoJin Robinson, 80 Queen St. In Dir. 1796-1805. 

^Ramael Robinson, Beggar’s Bush. In Dir. 1786-1803. 
William Robinson, Chapelizod. Prs. 1764-70 for work 
I varying in value from £2,000 to £6,000 worth. 

Messrs. James Russell and Michael Mooney. Small Pr. 
1764. James Russell alone in Dir. at Marrow-bone 
Lane and Water Row% 1767-1808. 

* H. Sadlier, H. Bagnall, etc., Cork Cotton Manufactory 

and Print-yard, Cork. c. 1793. (Saunder’s News- 
Letter, 10 May, 1793). 

X Messrs. Frayicis Sandy s, Francis Donovan and John 
Collins, Temple-Oge. Golden Eagle in Bridge St. 
c. 1757-60. Pet. 1759. See p. 42. 

David Sherrard, Coombe. c. 1766-67. “ This season the 

first of his printing.” (Freeman’s Journal, 12 Aug., 
1766; 17 Feb., 1767, etc.) 

I am indebted to a descendant, S. Warnock, Esq., of Dublin, for 
the ; , inf ormation that the Robinsons kept a printing yard working 
ne^. St. Mary’s, Donnybrook, until the year 1835, when they sokl the 
site ' to the Royal Dublin Society. He also tells me that the Ash- 
worths’ yard was near the present Beaver Row, Donnybrook. 


Messrs. Sisson, Lucan and Turner’s, College Green, c. 
1756-1800. Pet. 1757. Prs. 1764-68. In Dir. 1762- 
1800. See pp. 38-39. 

* Smith and Co., Island Bridge, moved to Mosney, near 

Drogheda, 1786. (Dublin Evening Post,. 28 Oct., 

X M Theophilus Thompson and Francis Nixon, Drumcondra. 
c. 1752-57. Pet. 1755. See pp. 40-41. 

Thomas Turner. Small Prs. 1766-70. 

Mrs. Mary Wheatley, Palmerston, Co. Dublin. (Formerly 
Mrs. Grant, mother of Samuel Grant and Mrs. 
Knabbs). c. 1720-1753. See p. 35. 

James Willson, Mill Street. (Dublin Gazette, 4 Sept., 1731, 
as seeking benefit under “ Act for Relief of Insolvent 
Debtors. ”) 

William Worthington, Watergates. c. 1774-87. Pet. 
1787. Also calico printing at Island Bridge. See 
p. 49. 


Ben. Clarke and Sons, 110 Bride Street. In Dir. 1806 as 
Merchants, Manufacturers and Printers. 

Edward Clarke, 9 Merchant’s Quay and later at Skipper’s 
Alley. In Dir. 1800-09 as Manufacturer and Printer. 
Patrick Dillon, Donnybrook. In Dir. 1800-03. 

Dajfy, Byrne and Hamill, Ballsbridge and 4 Usher’s 
Quay, and later 29 Bridge St. In Dir. 1793-1809 as 
Merchants, Manufacturers and Printers. See p. 49. 
Benjamin Flint (Junior), 61 Marrow-bone Lane. In Dir. 

B. Flint, Drumcondra and 4 Upper Ormond Quay. In 
Dir. 1806. 

Gibbons and Dillon, 14, 15 Brown St. In Dir. 1804-09. 

* Nicholas Grimshaw, Belfast, c. 1793. Supplied his 

printed calicos to Brown, Gaw and Co. (Northern 
Star, 22 Jan., 1793). 

Nicholas and William Grimshaw and Co., 18 Merchant’s 
Quay. In Dir. 1801-03. 

Thomas Grimshaw and Co., 18 Merchant’s Quay. In 
Dir. 1801-03. 

Thomas Jordan, Chapelizod. Died c. 1804. 

Gerald Osbrey, 50 Marrow-bone Lane and later at 43 Cork 
St. In Dir. 1792-1801. 


Smith, Orrs and Co., Stratford-on- Slaney, Co. Wicklow, 
and 8 Merchant’s Quay. c. 1782-95. In Dir. 
1792-94. Manufacturing and Printing Business 
advertised for auction in Saunder’s News-Letter, 17 
Mar., 1795. 

William Smith, 45 Cork St. In Dir. 1796. 

Charles Walsh , 46 Cork St. In Dir. 1796-1815. 

The distribution of these printing concerns is interesting. 
Those situated altogether in Dublin cannot have been large, as 
there would not have been the outdoor space, etc., necessary to 
the processes on any extensive scale. Some important firms like 
Dixon, Sisson and Clarke had town warehouses in addition to 
their works in the neighbourhood of the city. But it is the 
evidence for the concentration of factories on the banks of the 
Liffey and Tributaries — wherever water-power was conveniently 
obtainable — that is really valuable. Leixlip, Lucan, Palmers- 
town, Chapelizod, Island Bridge, Rathfarnham, Milltown, 
Templeogue, Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Drumcondra, were all 
sites of printing yards, and this distribution resembles that of 
the factories round London, or near Paris and other large towns 
in France. Nor is the picture unpleasing. It is possible from 
Worthington’s petition to imagine the Dublin drapers of the 
period going out to visit the various “ Printing Grounds ” to 
choose, or to wrangle over their patterns! 

This list also illustrates another fact — that after 1790 few 
printers were working on linen, but that there were numbers 
utilising calico. The almost exclusive employment of coUon 
materials after 1800, both in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe, 
definitely marks the decline of textile printing from an artistic 
point of view. By 1800 it had entered on an era of commercial- 
isation, the products of which are familiar from the chintzes and 
hangings of Victorian days. It is mainly for that reason that 
this article has been limited to the more interesting period of 
production in the eighteenth century. Nevertheless, it is hoped 
that this historical summary, though inadequate, may lead to 
the identification of further Irish specimens. 

In conclusion, I wish to thank the Director of the Victoria and 
Albert Museum, London, for permission to reproduce several 
photographs of textiles ; the Royal Dublin Society, for the use 
of their early manuscript minutes; the staff of the National 
Library, Dublin, for their courtesy when consulting newspapers, 
and Miss Clayton, Mr. F. O’Kelly, and Mr. M. S. D. Wes^- 
ropp, for drawing my attention to various references. 

( 57 ) 


By Henry Morris, Member. 

[Read 1.3th April, 1937]. 

I N examining the story of Partholon, with the view of seeing 
w’hat light it throws on its own origin, it will be necessary 
to recapitulate the chief features of the legend. 

Partholon came from middle Greece, says Keating, from Sicily, 
says the Leabhar Gabhala, or from Morea, according to the Annals 
of Clonmac noise. 

The reason of his migration was that he had killed his father 
and mother in trying to secure the kingdom for his brother or some 
other kinsman, just as Brutus, the first king of the Britons, is also 
alleged to have killed his parents. This motive for his migration 
may have been considered necessary by the poets who worked 
up the story. ^ 

Partholon as alleged w'as eighth in descent from Noah, but this 
post- Christian setting would have formed no part of the original 
legend. Others see in the name Partholon a derivative from the 
Hebrew name Bartholomew, but this may be only an accidental 
resemblance. Leaving out his ancestors, who of course are taken 
from the biblical list of descendants of Noah, there are altogether 
50 persons named in the legend, none of whom has a biblical name, 
so that Partholon or its original Irish form may not have had a 
biblical origin. 

We find another Partholon mentioned among a list of names 
as being the great grandfather of Cruithne, the eponymous ancestor 
of the Cruithne.^ 

Dr. MacNeill points out^^ that a variant of “ Partholon ” is 
Partha, and suggests that the form “ Partholon ” is borrowed 
from Cymric, which would account for its initial P, a consonant 
not found in Irish before the seventh century. He further suggests 
that Parth- may be a Pictish equivalent of the Cymric Pret-, 

^ It is given in the Leabhar Gabhala, the Irish Nennius, and the Annals 
of Clonmacnoise, but is not mentioned in the Chronicon Scotorum, the Metrical 
Idndsenchus, or the Book of Fenagh, which latter calls him “ the joyous 

* Zeitschrift fur Celtische Philologie XX p. iii. But of course his ancestry 
is also traced back to Noah. 


Irish Cruth-, whence the name Cruithni ; and he believes that the 
Part-rige people in Mayo, a race-name derived from an eponymous 
“ Part,” were of Cruithne descent or origin. If this be the correct 
via media by which the name Partholon has come down to us it 
argues a very respectable antiquity for the legend. Dr. MacNeiU 
again shows that the earliest existing references to it are in an 
Irish translation of a Latin original, which latter was written in 
721 A.D. This reference, however, merely gives an alleged date 
for Partholon’s arrival in Ireland, and for the catastrophic extinc- 
tion of his race, without any further details. 

Partholon came to Ireland 300 years after the Deluge,^ and 
after a two and a half years’ voyage‘s landed in our island on a 
Tuesday in the month of May.^ As to where he landed there is 
disagreement : several of the authorities say at Inbher Sceine in 
West Munster. The Milesians’ second landing was also at Inbher 
Sceine, and so was Neimhidh’s. But Dr. MacNeill has shown® 
that Inbher Sceine never belonged to Irish topography, and that 
it is a place name lifted bodily out of the work of Orosius, a Spanish 
historian of the early fifth century. In the geographical chapters 
of his history this author states that south-west Ireland, especially 
the promontory where the mouth of the river Scena (Ostium 
Scenae) is, was visible from the north-west of Spain. With this 
before them, Inbher Sceine became with early Irish writers the 
favourite landing place for aU adventurers from Spain or the 
Mediterranean, though none of these writers could tell where 
exactly such an estuary was. It ever remained a mythical place 

But there was what appears to have been an older tradition 
which occurs in the Metrical Dindsenchus^ and in an authority 
quoted in the Revue Celtique^ to the effect that Partholon landed 
at Inis Sameir, the little rocky islet in the mouth of the river Erne, 
just below the cascade of Assaroe. Even those authorities who 
land him at Inbher Sceine in south-west Munster bring him in a 
twinkling to Inis Sameir, which shows that the introduction of 
Inbher Sceine is purely artificial. 

The little island of Inis Sameir has a surface which is to-day 

R.I.A. proc., vol. XXVIII, sect, c., p. 145. Ibid., 123-5. 

® 278 years according to the Four Masters and Leabhar Gabhala, and 
313 years (Annals of Clonmacnoise). Keating dissents from some authorities 
who say it was 1002 years after the Flood. 

*Two months and a half according to Keating. 

^ The authors do not agree as to the date of the month. 

® “ Phases of Irish History,” pp. 93-95. 

’ Dr. Todd, in his edition of the Irish Nennius, p. 249, identifies it with 
the river Corrane in Kerry, but apparently without any authority. 

* Gwynn’s ed. Ill, p. 419. ® Vol. XVI, p. 141. 



almost completely covered by a small modern house, yet the big 
part this small island plays in the story goes a long way to suggest 
that the legend or tradition had its origin somewhere near the 
mouth of the Erne, among people who were very familiar with 
this little island. There are many more attractive spots along 
the Erne estuary where a bark might land to-day, but in Partholon’s 

Inis Samejr. 

[Photo. Mason. 

time the country is represented as being densely wooded, and 
these woods no doubt full of wild animals, so the little island offered 
Partholon a temporary refuge until he could construct some better 
place for himself. The simpler account represents the party as 
eight in number,^® modelled perhaps on that of Noah in the ark. 
These are as follows : — 

Men Wives 

Partholon Delgnat (dau. of Lochtach)^®^ 

r Slainghe Nerbha 

Three sons ^ Laighlinne Ciochbha 

I^Rudhraighe Cerbnat 

Dindsenchus and Chronicon Scotorum. Other versions say they num- 
bered twenty-four. “ Dealbnat ” in Leabhar Leacain. 


The Leabhar Gabhala gives the names of his ten daughters 
and their ten husbands^^ his 20 attendants'^ and his four oxen.^^ 
The very forms of these names show their artificiality, as being 
the work of penmen dressing up the legend. Keating, probably 
following the Irish Nennius, says he had 1,000 followers, which 
w'e may take as another artificial item. 

The Leabhar Gabhala says Partholon chose the neighbourhood 
of Assaroe, also called Ess Da Econn, because it was “ the most 
fruitful place he found before him in Ireland.” 

The Dindsenchus^^ says Partholon had hope in the rivers of 
Ireland, but he found not a fish till he reached mead-loving Muaidh — 
“ Inbher mBuadha . . .let every ford and rivermouth cease 

to vie with it.” 

Not alone the learned modern editor of the Metrical Dindsenchus, 
but the poet wLo centuries ago gave us the metrical form of the 
legend, believed that this had reference to the estuary of the river 
Moy. This in my opinion is not the case. The Inbher mBuadha 
was an old name for the Erne estuary, but its form lent itself to 
easy confusion with the Moy.^® The wealth of the Erne estuary 
in salmon is famous, and has been the subject of prolonged litigation 
in recent times, and it would be strange if an ancient tradition 
said that Partholon could find no fish there, and had to go for 
fish to the mouth of the Moy. ♦ 

One of the troubles of Irish toponjuny is that you find for one 
place two, three, or more names belonging to different chrono- 
logical strata. Such is the case with the Erne estuary. The 
Onomasticon,^^ quoting the Book of Lecan, has Inbher mBuadha, 
alias Inbher Cairnd Glais at Inis Saimer. 

The “ Battle of Magh Rath has “ gus an mbuinde mBuadha, 
inund son agus gus an sreibh Eass Ruaidh,” “ to the cascade of 
Buadh, which is the same as the stream of the cataract of Eas 
Ruaidh. ”1^ The Revue Celtique^^^ also has Inbher Chairnd Glais 
now called Inbher mBuadha. 

Aidhne, Aife, Aine, Fochair, Muchus, Melepart, Glas, Grennach, Abhlach, 
and Gribbennach. 

^ 2 Brea, Boan, Ban, Cairtenn, Eccnach, Athcosan, Luchradh, Lugair, 
Liger, and Griber. 

Accasbel, Brea, Malaliach, Tath, Fios, Fochmarc, Miolchu, Meran, 
Muireachan, Bachorbladhra, Biobal, Babal, Tothacht, Tarba, lomus, 
Aithechbel, Cuil, Dorcha, Damh, and Topa. 

Lee, Lecmagh, lomaire, and Eterche. 

Gwynn, III, p. 419. 

A confusion made easier still by the existence of a Sidh Budha in Tirawley, 
west of the Moy. See “ Tribes and Customs of Hy Fiachrach,” p. 411. 

I’p. 457. 18 p. 104. 

1* A cataract of adjectives is omitted here. 

18a R.C. xvi., p. 144. 

B^LUHtha # 

OF Ballyshannon District : scale J inch to a mile. 


One of the townlands belonging to the Abbey of Assaroe was 
Tamhnach Buadha,^® and both the Martyrologies of Donegal and 
TaUaght mention under 2Ist July “ the seven bishops of Tamhnach 
Buadha,” wLich would appear to be the same place, as a later 
hand in the Martyrology of Donegal has inserted at the same date 
“ Tenna of Tamhnach Buadha,” and a people called “ Tinney ” 
lived in that district until recent times, probably are there yet.^^ 

Hence it may be accepted that the Inbher mBuadha where 
Partholon fished was not the mouth of the Moy, but the mouth 
of the Erne, “ the noblest inbhear (or estuary) in Erin,” as Ruadh, 
grand daughter of Dond Desa, said before she was drowned there. 
This agrees with the whole setting of the Partholon story, and the 
Moy may henceforth be dismissed from our consideration. 

One day Partholon went off to fish, leaving only on the little 
islet his wife Delgnat and his man servant Topa. During his 
absence this worthy pair misconducted themselves, and on his 
return he, having his suspicions aroused, charged his wife with 
unfaithfulness. She brazenly admitted the misconduct, and 
justified it partly on account of his own contributory negligence. 
Our historians at any rate have represented her as having the 
best of the argument. During this altercation her lap-dog Samer 
came over innocently to play with Partholon, but the infuriated 
husband killed him with a blow. This dog was buried on the 
island, whence its name Inis Sameir. The river Erne too was for 
centuries knowm as the Samer. The change from Samer to Saimer 
is recent, the result of the Caol-le-caol fashion in Irish spelhng. 

When the Abbey of Assaroe was founded it was often referred 
to as de Samaris, showing that even then the name of the island 
and river still had the broad m. 

This is said to have been the first jealousy in Ireland, and the 
name Glenade in Co. Leitrim is popularly supposed to be a memorial 
of this, but the latter place is 14 or 15 miles distant from Inis 
Sameir. It may be that wLile the legend was still in the oral 
stage the Breifne people locahsed it in one of their own glens, and 
represented Glenade as the scene of this first jealousy. 

When Partholon w as ten years in Ireland his claim to the country 
around the Erne estuary w'as disputed by Ciogul Gri-gen-chosach, 
fourth in descent from Umhor. The Chronicon Scotorum and 
Leahhar Gabhala both say they were Fomorians, and were demons 

20 Dr. Maguire’s Ballyshannon, p. 4, et seq. 

21 There is a Rath Tinney townland near BalHntra. 

22 Three fishermen Cappa, Lagne, and Luaset, are said in Ogygia to have 
landed at the mouth of the Moy before Partholon. It is more likely the 
mouth of the Erne was the place meant. 



who had only one leg and one hand and one eye each. The battle 
lasted a week, and Partholon won this, the first battle in Ireland ; 
he not alone won, but wiped out his opponents so that not a fugitive 
escaped. This battle was fought on the Slemhains of Magh Itha. 
In nearly all modern writings these places are incorrectly identified. 

0 Donovan^^ says Magh Itha was a plain in the barony of Raphoe 
along the river Finn, and the Sleamhna were near Lough SwiUy. 
There is no doubt a Magh Itha in east Donegal, frequently 
mentioned in the Annals but it is not the one referred to here. 
With one exception, — Miss Dobbs — aU modern editors, as far as 

1 am aware, foUow O Donovan. The Magh Itha of this battle 
is the plain between the Erne and the Drowes. The references 
to it are many. In the Book of Rights^ ^ the poem on the king of 
Ail'each begins : — “ O Man, if thou hast gone northw'ards across 
Magh n-Itha of the hardy border,” etc. 

Coming over the Drowes from Connacht, Magh nitha would 
be the first part of the territory of Aileach the visitor would cross. 

Miss Dobbs in Some Ancient Place-names'^^ says “ Magh Itha 
an Indusa is here plainly distinguished from Magh Itha around 
Stranorlar. It (the former) was between the Erne and the Drowes.” 
Again “it is followed by an allusion to Magh Itha an Indusa as 
being the same as Magh Ene.” This district, now called “ the 
Moy,” was until recently known as Magh Ene. It is sometimes 
called Magh Indusa in cld texts from Indusa, daughter of Bress 
of the Tuatha de Danann who perished there. The older form of 
Magh Itha w^as Magh n-Itha (or n -lotha), and it is not improbable 
that Ptolemy’s Magnata was derived from this name. They were 
a people wLich he places south of the Erdini at Lough Erne. The 
name appears to mean “ the Corn plain,” but to the older historians, 
such as the compilers of the Dindsenchus, practically all place- 
names must needs be derived from personal names, and so Magh 
Itha is alleged to be derived from Ith, son of Breogan, the first 
Milesian, who came from Spain on a voyage of exploration. All 
authorities say he landed in Ireland at Breantracht of Magh Itha, 
but the author of the poem in the Metrical Dindsenchus wuU have 
it that Breantracht was in lorrus Corco Duibhne, yet Ith quickly 
appears at Aileach near Derry, as easily as if he had modern roads 
and a 30 h.p. motor car. He foolishly expressed such appreciation 
of the country that the men at Aileach concluded he w ould originate 

23 Annals Four Masters, note p. 5. 

2^A.U. 1103, 1128, 1178, 1179, 1181, 1199, 1201, 1248, etc. 
23 p. 129. 

26R.S.A.I. Journal, 1926, p. 112. 

Ibid., p. 113. 


an invasion of the country as soon as he got back to Spain, and 
so they followed him and mortally w'ounded him at Magh Itha. 

All this suits the plain of “ the Moy ” rather than the plain at 
Stranorlar. No ship could land near the latter place, and we 
are told that when he was wounded his men got him on shipboard 
all bloody as he was, and so sailing towards Spain he died on the 
way. It would be very difficult for a few beaten men with 
enemies behind them to convey a person mortally wounded from 
Stranorlar to the mouth of the Erne, a distance of about 30 miles, 
but comparatively easy if they were at Magh Itha between BaUy- 
shannon and the sea. The Breantracht where he landed was, it 
appears, the slobland at the mouth of the Erne, now' partly covered 
by sand. Another reference in the Revue Celtique^^ which speaks 
of “ the sea between Inbher Tuili and Beantracht Moighi hlotha ” 
proves conclusively that the latter place was on the coast, and not 
along the river Finn as the Onomasticon and other authorities 
erroneously state. 

The Met. Dindsenchus^^ says “ High Magh Itha of the chilly 
banks was called Magh Bolg until the death of Ith.”^^ -phis was 
a still earlier name for this celebrated plain. A further name 
was Magh Inis, but I think this plain was more extensive than 
Magh Itha, and extended down the coast of Co. Sligo at least as 
far as Tor Inish.^^ 

We have a reference to Findabair Maighe hlnnis,^^ the weU- 
know’n Fennor at Bundoran. The Onom. speaks of “ the Trad- 
raighe of Magh Inis, — Fennor is in it,”^® and gives as an alias 
Magh n-Ene at the Erne. Such is the wealth of names by w'hich 
this plain was known dow'n through the centuries. 

The Irish Nennius^^ says Ith landed at Brentracht and died at 
Slemhna. Sleamhain or Slemhna is, I feel convinced, the smooth 
grassy slopes between BaUyshannon and Bundoran. Being sand- 
hills they grow clean hardy pastures which the sheep and cattle 
keep cropped short, so that the surface is sleamhain or smooth. 

28 Keating, Leabhar Gabhala, &c. 

29Vol. XXX, 392 et seq. 

88 Irish Nennius, p. 240, and Onom. Goed. p. 126. 

31 IV, p. 91. 

32 This description suits M. Itha at the Erne, but not that at Stranorlar, 

33 See R.S.A.I. Journal . There was another 

Magh Inish in Lecale, and another in Famey (Rev. Gelt. VI, 172). 

31 Zeitschrift fur Celtic Philologie III, p. 238. 

3 8 Onomasticon pp. 522 and 420. There was another Tradraighe in Co. 

36 p. 241. 

3’ Sleamhain may also mean a place of elms, but the famous Sleamhain 
of the Tain in Meath, has I believe the same significance as that at Bimdoran. 
On the western shore of lower Lough Erne, about 3| miles east of Belleek 



The proofs then for this identification of Sleamhna are : — 

(1) That it is in Magh Itha. 

(2) That it answers the description conveyed in the name. 

(3) That it suits the Ith episode. 

(4) That it answers the account of Partholon’s battle with 

Ciogal. He met the invader not on the shore, but on 
the rising ground behind the shore where he had the 
advantage of position. 

This brings us back to Partholon. His son Laiglinde was mortally 
wounded in the great battle of Sleamhna Maighe hitha, and the 
Metrical Dindsenchus^® tells us that “ he perished in the glen 
beside a spring well,” and that “ a wave burst from the well over 
the plain and turned it into a shoreless lake,”^^ whence the name 
Lough Laighlinde.^^^ Delgnat his mother went into a dumha or 
burial mound and died of grief for her son ; and if we are to befieve 
the Dindsenchus fifty of her women were immolated before her — 
an echo of a very ancient burial rite. This is the last we hear of 
this strong-willed woman. 

The site of Lough Laighlinne is unknown. Some commentator 
noted that it was in Ui mac Uais in Meath, but that district, as 
Dr. Gwynn has pointed out, is devoid of lakes. Another Ui mac 
Uais district west of the Bann in Ulster is almost as lakeless. A 
third Ui mac Uais was in Teffia, now in Co. Westmeath. The 
lake Saighlinn, now Lough Sheehn, is only three miles outside this 
territory, and may have been at one time inside it, and its name 
only differs by one letter from Laighlinn, so I imagine some ancient 
scribe confused the two names. 

There was a great break in Irish scholarship, owing to the burning 
of the libraries and break up of the schools between 800 and 1000, 
so that many of the notes made by Irish historians of the I Ith 
and 12th centuries are mere guess-work. But oral traditions 
before the schoolmen began to operate on them were reasonable 
and consistent, and we may well wonder what would bring a 

there is a Slawin graveyard just beside the Ermiskillen-Ballyshannoii road. 
It is now in Carrigolagh townland, but that Slawin was itself anciently a 
townland is shown by the “ Barr of Slawin,” a townland two miles to the 
south-east, where the Slawin people formerly had the summer pasturage 
for their cattle up in the hills. 

But this Slawin on the shores of Lough Erne would not at all suit the story 
of the killing of Ith. It would be quite out of the line of march from Aileach 
to the mouth of the Erne. Of the four men the Tuatha de Danaim left in 
Ireland one of them — Redg — was left “ i Slemhnaibh Maighi hitha.” 
(Anecdota from Irish MSS. vol. II, p. 6). 

Gwynn ’s ed. IV, 251. 

The name of the well was Tipra Dera meic Scera. 

Laiglinde is the older form, but Keating and other moderns write 




mortally wounded man from Magh Itha at the Erne either to Meath 
or Westmeath or the side of the Bann, and that in an uninhabited 
country. This we may lawfully conclude formed no part of the 
original story. The lake that inundated the valley and covered 
his grave must have been somew'here reasonably near Magh Itha. 
I would suggest for several reasons that it was Lough Glenade. 
This lake is in a remarkable glen, and, being surrounded 
with steep shores, it is a “ loch gan traigh,’’’’ a lake without a 
strand, such as would border a lake in a flat countr 3 ^ In the 
Dindsenchus it is called “ Loch na dTonn ” or the lake of waves, 
which is also a characteristic of this lake when a strong wind blows 
through the narrow vaUey. Further, one of the townlands border- 
ing the lake is called Srac Leighreen, which might possibly" be a 
corruption of Srath Laighlinn, but I do not stress this point. 

This identification receives strong confirmation from the peculiar 
position of “ Loch Laiglinde ” in the Dindsenchus. In aU the 
MS. versions of that compilation Loch Laiglinde is mentioned 
in onl^^ two, viz., the Leabhar Leacain (A.D. 1418), and the Stowe 
MS. D. II. 2 (A.D. 1573) : the latter was written by one of the 
O Clerk’S of Donegal, and its Dindsenchus is derived, though not 
directly, from the former. But in both these copies the Dind- 
senchus of Loch Laiglinde follows immediate^ that of Breifne, 
and Dr. Gw^mn points out^®^ that in Leabhar Leacain both these 
articles occur in that part of the MS. which was written b}' Adam 
O Cuirnin, a member of the great literary family whose library 
on Church Island in Lough Gill at Sligo was burned in 1416. 

Now this Adam O Cuirnin belonged to a family that for ages 
had been official historians of West Breifne, and as such had a special 
interest in Breifne, so that it may be inferred that it was he who 
was responsible for introducing these tw^o articles that hitherto 
had no place in the Dindsenchus. But if Loch Laiglinde had been 
in Ulster or in East or West Meath 0 Cuirnin would not have 
troubled about it. As it is, Lough Glenade is only ten miles away 
as the crow flies from Lough Gill, hence O Cuirnin’s interest in it. 
And Glenade we must remember is only the name of the glen ; 
the name of the lake has been lost, but I suggest it may have been 
called Loch Laiglinde as late as the 15th centur}^, when O Cuirnin 

Slanghe, another son of Partholon, died a year before Laighlinn, 
says Keating, but older authorities such as the Dindsenchus say 
he was a leech or doctor, and wrought healing for Laighlinn when 

It may be Sra Cleighreen. 

40a Metr. Dinds. V, p. 5. Breifne and Loch Laiglinde occur on p. 524 of 
the Manuscript. 



the latter was wounded in the battle of Magh Itha. This seems 
the more credible form of the legend. He was buried in a cairn 
on a mountain thenceforth called Shabh Slanga, to be confused 
in later times with the modern Slieve Donard called also Shabh 
Slanga from an event in the life of Rudhraig the eponymous ancestor 
of the Clann Rudraighe. But there was no lack of mountains 
around Magh Itha on one of which Partholon could bury his son, 
though the name Sliabh Slanga is no longer remembered there. 
Similarly a lough Rudhraighe w^as called after Partholon’s third 
son, which O Donovan claimed at one time was the Erne estuary. 
Later he believed it was Dundrum Bay, but Dr. Gwynn chaUenges 
this, and believes it was Carhngford Lough. There was a lough 
Rudhraighe on the coast of Down, but called after the Clan Rudh- 
raighe, and not after Partholon’s son. 0 Donovan’s first opinion 
was hkely correct. He gives it on the authority of the Leabhar 
Gabhala of the O Clerys^^ The synchronising historians when 
they had no material for explaining place-names laid under con- 
tribution these stories of the early invasions, and used up their 
personal names to explain place-names in any part of Ireland, 
thus artificially destroying the local character of these legends. 
So Fea, Breccan, and other of Partholon’s supposed followers, 
even his oxen, were used to explain place-names widely separated 
throughout the island. I reject these as purely artificial. The 
oldest place-names in any country are the river-names, and we 
are told there were only nine or ten rivers in Ireland when 
Partholon came. Eight of these rivers are the same in aU the 
chief authorities — the Book of Leinster, of Ballymote, the Chronicon 
Scotorum, Annals of Clonmacnoise, the Leabhar Gabhala, the 
Ogygia, and Keating. These rivers are the Muaidh (Moy), the 
Sligeach (Shgo river), the Samair (Erne) the Find (Finn), the 
Modhorn (Mourne) the Banna (Bann), Buais (Bush) and Lui (Lee ?). 
Now it will be noted that all these rivers, with one exception, 
were such as would be known to a seafaring folk who lived near 
Donegal Bay. The exception is the Lee, but this is not the river 
at Cork. The old name for this river was the Sabhrann, used as 
late as 1163 by the IV Masters, and about 1420 by O Heerin, and 
the name “ Lee ” came into general use only in the sixteenth 
century. Loch Laoigh was the old name for Belfast Lough, 
and the river flowing into it may have been called the Laoigh 

Loch Rudi was an old name for the expansion of the Bann, near its 
mouth (Onom.) 

See “ Battle of Magh Rath,” p. 35. 

Ptolemy’s Dabrona is probably a mis -transcript for Sabrona. 

^"Rev. Celt. XXIII, p. 323. 


or Laoi, as the Lagan was originally a land, not a river, name, ! 

so that the old name of this river has become lost.^® The Life is j 

also given as one of the 9 rivers, though here again the Life was i 

originally the name of the plain, not of the river, the latter’s name ’ 

being the Ruirthech. Some of the later writers such as Keating, 
knowing this, have changed Life to Ruirthech, but in so doing 
they departed from their old authorities. Life presumably was 
some river in the same north western area.^® The Berba (or j 

Barrow) is given in the Chronicon Scotorum and in the Ogygia, i 

but people who would know the Barrow^ would also know the j 

Boyne, Slaney, Suir, Shannon, etc., so we may be assured the : 

Berba is a false reading of some obsolete river name. AU this * 

points to the conclusion that the only part of the island known 
to the people who traditionally handed down the story of the 
Partholon invasion was the north coast of Connacht and the west 
and north of Ulster. 

There were but three lakes in Erin when Partholon came. One 
of these was Findloch, wLich was an old name for Lower Lough 
Erne. It occurs twice in the annals, at the year 1369 in the Four 
Masters, and at 1505 in the Annals of Ulster. The reference to 
Boa Island (Badhbha) in the former, and to the Maguires and 
other Co. Fermanagh people in the latter, place it beyond all 
doubt that it is Lower Lough Erne which is referred to in both 
these entries. This would be known to the local annahst who 
made the original records, now lost, from which the later annals 
were compiled. But outside the vicinity of the lake this name 
had grown obsolete and had been replaced by “ Lough Erne.”^®^ 

Hence the authors of the later versions of the Partholon story 
expressly state that this was Finnloch Ceara in Co. Mayo, owing 
to their ignorance of the real Findloch. 

Similarly the two other lakes are given as Loch Luimnigh, the 
estuary of the Shannon, and Loch Fordreamain, a smaU lake in 
Co. Kerry. But a people who, as we have seen, did not know of 
the river Shannon would not know of Loch Luimnigh, and still 
less of a small obscure lake in Co. Kerry. Luimnigh is possibly 
a scribal error for Lough Meilghe, which adjoins Magh Itha, or 
(Lough) Suihgh, and Fordreamain for Foirindsi, an old name j 

for Lough Foyle, or rather for the plain where Lough Foyle is | 

to-day. A blurred manuscript, and a scribe from the middle , 

It would appear to be Ptolemy’s “ Logia.” 

Rivers in this area not mentioned are the Uinshin at Ballysodare, the 
Codhnac at Drumcliff, the Dubh, the Drobhaois, the Esk, Swilly, and Roe. 
46a It may never have been more than a local alias for Loch Erne. 

47 Onom. p. 520. It was also called Loch Sentuindi. 



or south of Ireland to whom these northern names were unfamiliar 
would account for the substitution. 

Seven lakes, w’e are told, burst forth in Erin in Partholon’s 
time, which may be taken to mean that his people discovered 
these amid the dense Woods. Three of these are in Connacht — • 
Lough Conn, Lough Masc, and Lough Techet (now Lough Gara). 
The fourth was Lough Laighhnne which I suggest was Lough 
Glenade. The remaining three are Lough Echtra, Lough Rudh- 
raighe, and Brena (Lough Cuan or Strangford lough) all in east 
Ulster. But lakes much nearer to Partholon’s people were Lough 
Gill, Glencar lake. Lough Melvin, and Lough Esk, and the older 
names of some of these may have been transmuted into the ones 
we read to-day. 

Partholon and his people cleared four plains, and the synchronis- 
ing historians, when they made Partholon’s invasion a national 
one, divided these four plains over the four provinces, giving one 
to each province, but it Would appear they are nearly all not far 
from the Erne. Magh Sere is a plain near BaUintra, only five 
or six miles from Bahyshannon.^^"" Magh n-Eitrighe, ahas Magh 
n-Edera, alias Magh Tuiredh^® is the plain west of BaUysodare.^^ 
Magh Ithe (or Itha) is probably the east Donegal plain at Stranorlar. 
I take it that Magh n-Itha at the Erne, being a sandy plain, was 
comparatively treeless when Partholon came. For the fourth 
plain we have three names in the different texts — Magh Latharna, 
Magh Lii, and Lee Magh,®® none of which I can place. But taking 
these twenty-four geographical features — ten rivers, ten lakes, 
and four plains — we find that fourteen of them are such as would 
be known to a people living along the coast between Donegal Bay 
and Shgo Bay. Then when we remember the close connection 
of the legend with Inis Samer and Magh Itha, the conclusion 
seems irresistible that we are dealing here not with a legend common 
to the whole of Ireland, as the historians would have us believe, 
but with a memory of an actual invasion traditionally handed 
down by the people of the sea coast around the estuary of the 
Erne, who had only a limited and local knowledge of the geography 
of Ireland. 

If, as some seem to think the Partholon story was artificially 
built up in medieval times it would not have this local bias. To 

Cf. Magh Sereth, Onom. p. 530. 

As Dr. Gwynn shows, Met. Dind. IV, p. 455-6. 

See R.S.A.I. Journal. 

There are two places in the area for which Lecmagh would be a suitable 
name, one around Knocknarea, and the other near Manorhamilton-Aolmagh. 
Magh Lii may be the plain occupied by the Fir Li on the banks of the Bann ; 
and Magh Latharna the plain at Lame. 


obscure or deprive it of such a bias appears to have been the wish 
and aim of the synchronising historians. 

After thirty years Partholon died on the Sean Magh or old 
plain, which is nearly everywhere given as Magh n-Ealta north 
of Dubhn. There was however another account of his death, 
which is mentioned in Ogygia. O Flaherty says “ They say 
Partholon died at the old plain of Moy n-alt in Meath, but I find 
elsewhere that he died of a wound which he recived in the battle 
of Moy Ithe.” This is much more probable, that he died where 
he had hved, rather than on the east coast of Ireland.®^ 

After three hundred years his people were all sw’ept away in 
one week by a plague. The Annals of Clonmacnoise, Leabhar 
Gabhala, Annals of the Four Masters, and others, have it that 
this also happened in Magh n-Ealta near HowTh. But the Chronicon 
Scotorum says “ From that plague of Partholon’s people the 
tamhleachta of the men of Erin are called.” As there are dozens 
of places throughout Ireland called Tamhleacht or TaUaght it is 
clear that the twelfth century compiler of the Chronicon Scotorum 
did not believe Partholon’s people died in one place. The Bean 
Senchus^^ also says “ Tamhlachta were formed from their tombs.” 
But in the later compilations these various cemeteries are reduced 
to one. The Four Masters recounting their death, say “ whence 
is named Taimhleacht Muintire Partholoin,”^® and O Flaherty 
explains “ There a monastery afterwards was erected at Tamhlacht, 
three miles south of Dublin.” Thus the “ cemeteries ” of the 
earher historians became one definite well-knowm cemetery, simply 
because TaUaght meantime had become somewhat famous as a 
monastery. Thus do places of big repute frequently attract to 
themselves items of history that properly belong to smaUer places. 
In aU books of modern editing TaUaght wiU be found put down 
unquestioningly as the place where Partholon’s people died and 
were buried. It has no claim whatever to this, any more than 
the scores of other Tamhlachta throughout the country. There 
are two Tamhlacht towmlands in the Barony of Boyle, Co. Roscom- 
mon, another near Pettigo, Co. Donegal, and a Lachta townland 
beside Kinlough, and a Ferta townland less than two mUes south 
of Kinlough, and any of these would have a better claim to be 
the burial place of Partholon’s people than TaUaght at Dubhn. 

16 years according to some. The Book of Lecan, fol. 273. 

The various names for Magh Itha show that it was an “ old plain.” 

Or as O’Flaherty thinks only 30 years. 

But the early version which Dr. MacNeill quotes from the Book of 
Ballymote says the Partholonians were all slain by a race known as Conchinn, 
which may mean the Hoimd-heads, or the High-heads, i.e. the tall race. 

55 Rev. Celt. 291 and 317. 56 j. p. 9 . 57 Ogygia III, p. 11. 



To explain how the story of Partholon was handed down to 
later inhabitants of the island, one of his people named Tuan mac 
Cairill is represented as having survived until Christian times, and 
having related the story of his race. This explanation has intrinsic 
evidence of being not alone post- Christian but post-Norse in origin. 

Such an explanation only became necessary when Partholon 
was represented as the first of a series of colonisers wLo had no 
other people in the island but themselves. But if the Partholon 
legend is founded on an actual local pre -historic invasion that 
occurred more than a thousand years after Ireland became first 
peopled, then the memory of this race and of their tragic fate 
would be handed down by their neighbours without any need of 
the services of the mythical Tuan Mac Cairill.®'^*' 

The last clumsy addition the synthetic historians appear to 
have made to the Partholon story w^as to give him four other sons 
who divided Ireland between them in four parts, and Keating 
teUs us these four had namesakes among the descendants of Milidh. 

It was necessary for the scheme of the eleventh and twelfth century 
historians that Partholon’s descendants should be connected with 
the whole of Ireland. Thus a tradition which was strictly local, 
and whose location can still be determined by its topography, 
has been pulled about and stretched by the later historians to 
make it cover the whole of the island, so that it may rank as one 
of the big national invasions. But it is time that our school books 
should cease to treat these alleged invasions as serious history. 
This one at any rate should rather be represented as a pre-historic 
tradition of what appears to have been a real local invasion at the 
mouth of the Erne, by some small colony, w'hose advent was never 
felt or heard of more than twenty miles inland, and who after 
some generations nearly aU perished by one of those plagues that 
in ancient times often depopulated whole districts. 

When writing became known some local monk or file wrote 
down the legend still preserving its local character, but after the 
Norse invasions the national historians discovered it, and expanded 
it into the form in which we find it to-day in Keating and in the 
Leabhar Gabhala. 

See page 137 of this Joiirnal for 1925 for illustration of a peculiar type 
of bronze sword-hilt found in the bottom of the harbour of Ballyshannon, a 
type of which no other example is known to have been found in Ireland. 
It is supposed to belong to the La Tene III period, about 100 B.C., but the 
date is imcertain ; some authorities believe that the type is derived from 
the earlier Hallstatt forms. Its presence, however, in the estuary of the Erne 
argues the presence there of European visitors sometime before the Christian 
era. The me'^iory of such visitors (or invaders ?) would have passed into 
legend long tefore the date of the earliest post-Christian writing in Ireland. 

Their names were Er, Orba, Fearon, Feargna. 

( 72 ) 


By Edmund Curtis, M.A., Litt.D., Fellow. 

[Bead 25th May, 1937]. 

The seals here reproduced are an addition to those repro- 
duced in a previous number of the Journal of this Society.* 
Out of the great treasure of seals in that collection it is only 
possible to choose a few for general illustration. I wish to 
express my gratitude to the Earl of Ossory, who has graciously 
allowed me to have these seals photographed and reproduced 
out of his magnificent collection. 

The ones I give here are nearly all ecclesiastical, but two 
handsome family ones occur at the end, one of these being the 
remarkable seal of Donal Eeagh MacMurrough Kavanagh, King 
of Leinster, of the date 1475. 

Plate VI, Figs. I, 2 and 3 are all from a Deed relating to the 
Abbey of Duiske or Graiguenamanagh, of the date 1227. Dr. 
Bernard and Lady Constance Butler have calendared the Deeds 
of this Abbey in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 
for July, 1918, and have reproduced some seals which, however, 
do not contain the above. For these three Figs, see their paper, 
Deed No. 23 (pp. 46-7). The Deed is an agreement between 
Peter, Bishop of Ossory, and his Chapter, with the Abbot and 
Convent of Duiske, dated December 6, 1227. The left-hand 
seal on the recto has the handsome impression of the Bishop 
himself in the usual conventional style; buf on the verso (Fig. 
2) is a most unusual and remarkable seal. It appears to be 
taken from, or modelled upon, some Eoman cameo, with the 
heads of two Emperors ( ? Constantine and his brother) regard- 
ing one another, with a labarum in between, this part being 
inset. The inscription is puzzling, but can be helped out by the 
fact that there are two copies of this seal, which I have shown 

^Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, Ireland, for June, 1936 , 

vol. Ixvi, p. I. 

Plate VI. J 

[To face page 72. 

Fig. 1. 

Fig. 2. 

Seal of the Bishop of Ossory, 1227 (recto and verso). 

Fig. 3. Seal of the Fig. 4. Seals of the Abbots of Duiske 
Chapter of St. Canice’s and Jerpoint, 1288. 


i- • 

Plate VII.] 

[To face page 73. 

Fig. I. Seal of the Phior 
OF Holy Cross, 1414. 

Fig. 2. Seal of the Archbishop of 
Cashel, 1429. 

Fig. 3. Seal of the Dean and 
Chapter of Leighlin, 1442. 

Fig. 4. Seal of the Abbey of 
Jerpoint, 1501-2. 


to two distinguished classical scholars. Mr. Newport B. White 
suggests as full a reading as is perhaps possible to make of it, 

This seal, then, must be a copy of some early Roman Christian 
seal, but what the adjuration means is not clear. One can only 
suggest “ keep the secrets of the Bishop (or ‘ Ruler praesul) 
by the sacred heads” (of the Emperors). The Bishop, Peter 
Malveisin, was a Frenchman, and in the course of his travels 
or previous life may have picked up some Roman seal, or had 
one copied, and now used it on the verso of his official seal. It 
gives a human touch to the document and an impression of 
Peter as an art collector. 

Fig. 3 (the third of these three) is a representation of the 
front of the Church of St. Canice’s Cathedral, Kilkenny, and is 
the seal of the Chapter. 

Plate VI, Fig, 4 is from a Deed dated 1288 (No. 84 in Dr. 
Bernard’s paper upon Duiske Charters quoted above). It is a 
petition from the Abbots of Jerpoint and of Duiske to the Abbot 
of Citeaux, dated at Jerpoint, July 10, 1288. Of the three seals 
one is gone. That of the Abbot of Duiske, on the left-hand side, 
is a handsome and well preserved specimen, the inscription being 
of Jerpoint on the right, though handsome, is incomplete. 

Plate VII, Fig. 1. This takes a jump forward and brings us to 
the fifteenth century. It is from letters patent of protection 
granted to the Abbot and Convent of Holy Cross by James 
Butler, Earl of Ormond, dated June 10, 1414 (N.S.). The seal 
is that of the Prior of Holy Cross which was a Cistercian House. 
All we can read of the inscription is SIG. [COMMUNIT] ATIS 
CISTERCIENS[IS]. For this Deed out of the Muniment Room, 
Kilkenny Castle, see Newport B. White, Irish Monastic and 
Episcopal Deeds (pp. 15 and 16). 

Plate VII, Fig. 2. is a very handsome large seal of the Arch- 
bishop of Cashel. It comes from a Deed dated September 22, 
1429, by which Richard, Archbishop of Cashel, appropriates 
to Holy Cross Abbey the vicarage of Ballycahill. The seals of 
the Chapter and Archdeacon are gone, but that of the Arch- 
bishop (Richard O’Hedyan), seated on his episcopal throne, 
is almost complete and very fine. He was an important figure 
in the religious and political life of Ireland in the fifteenth cen- 
tury. For the Deed see Newport White’s Irish Monastic and 
Episcopal Deeds {op. cit. pp. 21 and 22). 


Plate VII, Fig. 3. This seal also comes from a Deed given m 
Irish Monastic Deeds, pp. 250 and 251. The seal is that of the 
Dean and Chapter of Leighlin in very fair condition; in the left- 
hand niche is the Bishop robed and mitred, etc., and in the 
right-hand niche is a priest bearing in his left hand the sacra- 
mental wafer. The date of this Deed is February 27, 1442 
(N.S.). It is a grant of a tenement in Ivillurry by Thomas, 
Bishop of Leighlin, to James, Earl of Ormond. For further 
details see The Red Book of Ormond j ed. Newport B. White 
(pp. 142-4), also J.R.S.A.I., vol. I, (pp. 88 and 89), in which 
Dr. Graves describes a matrix of the seal of the Dean and 
Chapter of Leighlin now in possession of the Royal Irish 

Plate VIII, Fig. 1 also comes from Mr. White’s Monastic Deeds, 
pp. 28 and 29. The Deed is a grant to the Abbot and Convent 
of Jerpoint by Richard, son of Geoffrey Walshe, of certain lands, 
dated March 9, 1446 (N.S.). At the foot of the document are 
the seals of R. Walshe (broken), of the town of Thomastown 
(almost perfect), and of the town of Knocktopher (perfect). 
The inscription on that of Thomastown on the left is 


Grenan was the old name of Thomastown. The larger and 
much finer seal of Knocktopher presents a fine picture of the 
town gates with some floral device ( ? roses) on either side, and 
a barred gate is particularly clear with an opening to look out 
of. The inscription is 


Plate VII, Fig 4 is a handsome seal taken from a Deed 
calendared by Mr. Newport B. White (op. cit. pp. 54-55). It 
is a lease from the Abbot and Convent of Jerpoint to Oliver, 
bishop of Ossory, of the vill of Cloghran, dated February 20, 
1501-2. The remaining seal, that of the Abbey of Jerpoint, is 
in good condition and of a very artistic design. 

Plate VIII, Fig. 2 is the seal of Holy Cross Abbey, For the Deed 
see Irish Monastic Deeds (pp. 73 and 74) . It is a covenant 
between William, Abbot of Holy Cross, and Philip Purcell, 
relative to the terms of the former’s resignation of the office of 
Abbot, dated May 10, 1534. The parties agree that the Earl 
Piers and the Countess of Ossory and James their son and David 

Plate VIIl.J 

[To face page 74. 

Fig. 1. Seals of Thomastown (left) and Knocktopher (right), 1446. 

Fig. 2. Seal of Holy Cross 
Abbey, 1534. 

Fig. 3. Seal of the Bishop of 
Leighlin, 1558. 


O’Dwyer, Captain, with his nation, and James Purcell with his 
nation should be intercessors, or in Irish “ Slane,” for observing 
the said conditions. The whole is very artistic, and the represen- 
tation of the Crucifixion very fine, while the coats of arms 
below are very clear. 

Plate VIII, Fig. 3. The seal comes from a Deed printed in Irish 
Monastic Deeds (pp. 197-201). It is an absolution and dispensa- 
tion for schism and irregularity granted to John Archdekin, 
priest, by Thomas O’Fihelly, Bishop of Leighlin, under the 
authority of a letter from Cardinal Pole, Papal Legate, dated 
July 25, 1558. The seal is incomplete, but what remains is 
good, and represents the figure of the Bishop with mitre and 

Plate IX, Fig. 1. This seal is from a Deed printed in Irish 
Monastic Deeds^ op. cit. (pp. 211-212). It is a lease by the 
Vicars Choral of St. Canice’s, Kilkenny, to John Archer of two 
islands, dated March 4, 1575 (N.S.). The inscription is 


The two final specimens are not ecclesiastical, but are beauti- 
ful examples of individual or family seals. 

The first of them (Plat© IX, Fig. 2) comes from a Deed printed 
in Irish Monastic Deeds, p. 52, namely, a grant to the Prior 
and Convent of Kells by Paul Schewer, Lord of Mallardstown, 
dated April 10, 1498. “ The seal of the donor, Paul Schewer, 
is in good condition,” says Mr. White, but we may agree that it 
is in fact a very handsome and almost perfect impression. 
Though small, the details are perfectly clear. I can only make 
of the inscription 


but what this name means is not intelligible. In a slightly later 
Deed the name Schewer appears as Chevir, but I do not know if 
the name survives either as Schewer or Chevir in Co. Kilkenny. 

Plate IX, Fig. 3. C)f the specimens here reproduced, the last 
will perhaps provoke the greatest interest. It is the seal of Donal 
‘ Reagh ’ MacMurrough Kavanagh, who styled himself ‘ King 
of Leinster,’ and ruled from about 1432 to 1476, being the son 
of Gerald, a son of the famous Art Oge. This royal seal is 
attached to a grant made by Donal Reagh (who in it styles 
himself ‘ Lord of all Leinster ’) of 8d. per annum from each 


plough in his territory to the Convent of Duiske, dated at Ennis- 
corthy on April 3, 1475. 

For this see Dr. Bernard’s “ Charters of the Abbey of Duiske, 
(op. cit. pp. 149 and 150). The Charter was also printed in 1883 
by the Reverend James Graves in the Journal R.S.A.I. (vol. xvi, 
p. 23), who gave an illustration also of the seal, which in the 
attesting clause is described as the greater seal, the word show- 
ing that MacMurrough had a lesser or privy seal, like the Earl 
of Ormond. As Dr. Graves’s illustration was, however, only a 
drawing, though good in its way, I have thought it well to 
present our members with a clearer photographic reproduction. 
It is of life-size, almost complete, and very handsome. The 
inscription is 


There is a spirited lion passant in the central shield, and the 
supporters on each side are lions rampant with their heads turned 
backward. Above and below are figures of angels, supporting 
the shield. The lion and the animal supporters may of course 
be the mythical and mysterious Irish heraldic animal, the 
“ Onchu.” There is no evidence as to what has become of this 
interesting seal, which was used for another MacMurrough deed 
in August, 1525, in a treaty made between Piers, Earl of 
Ossory, and Murrough MacMurrough Kavanagh, grandson of 
Donal Eeagh (see Graves’s article, op. cit. p. 27). It possibly 
went abroad with other insignia of the family when the senior 
line departed to France. The arms of the present MacMurrough 
Kavanagh family of B orris have the device of a lion. 

Plate IX,] 

[To face page 7(>. 

Fig. 1. Seal of the Vicars 
Choral of St. Canice’s 
Cathedral, 1575. 

Fig. 2. Seal of the Schewer 
OR Chevir family, 1498. 

Fig. 3. Seal of Donal reagh Mac Murrough Kavanagh, 
King of Leinster, 1475. 

( 77 ) 

By Eamonn O Tuathail, M.A., M.R.I.A. 


Buncrana . 

A ccording to Seosamh Laoide’s ‘ Post-Sheanchas’^ Bun 
Crannaighe is the Irish name of the well-known seaside 
resort on the eastern shore of Lough Swilly. This form 
has been adopted by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs,^ 
and it appears also on some Irish maps pubhshed in recent times. 
Another form is given in Risteard 6 Foghludha’s valuable ‘ Log- 
Ainmneacha,’ viz. Bun Granndige. Neither of these forms seems 
to be supported by any authority. 

As far as I can discover the name does not appear in any of 
the annals. In English official documents of the 1 7th century 
the usual form is ‘ Boncran(n)agh ’ or ‘ Buncranagh.’ The -gh 
points to a voiceless guttural {ch) in the Irish form. Compare 
such speUings as Tir(e)lagh (Ir. Toirdhealbhach) and Dalogh 
(Ir. Dalach), both from the ‘ Patent and Close Rolls.’ Sometimes 
a final unaccented vowel following ch is not represented in the 
Enghsh official orthography ; e.g. Fardorogh (Ir. Feardorcha). 
And this is what happened in the case of ‘ Boncran(n)agh.’ 

In a letter^ Written at ‘ Buncranagh ’ in August, 1835, O’Donovan 
has the query : “ Does the name Bun Crancha occur in the Annals ?” 
Obviously O’Donovan was unacquainted with the Irish form of 
the name until he heard it among Irish speakers in Inishowen, 
and the form he heard there is recorded in his query. In the 
same district I have heard Bun Granncha (pron. cranndchd), which 
is undoubtedly the correct form of the name. Its meaning is 
‘ the mouth (or ‘ foot ’) of the Cranna (river).’ A similar genitive 
form occurs in immairecc Grannchae and Lettir Granncha.^ 

Near the Cranna river hved, no doubt, the O’Doherty sept known 
as Dochartaigh Thuaithe Granncha.^ 

^ Part I, 1905; Part II, 1922. ^ Eoluidhe an Phuist, 1937. 

® Ordnance Survey Letters, Co. Donegal. ^ Onomasticon. 

5 Cat. of Irish MSS. in R.I.A., p. 2505. 



The modern village of Clonmany is in the parish of Clonmany 
and in the barony of Inishowen, Co. Donegal. 

Prior to the 1 9th century there seems to have been no village of 
Clonmany. When travelling through Inishowen Pococke “ came 
to the country called from the parish Clanmany,”® hut he does 
not mention any town or village hearing that name. Even as 
late as 1837, when Lewis published his Dictionary, the number 
of houses must have been small. Lewis'^ states that there was 
a station for the constabulary police “ at Strand {leg. Straid) or 
Clonmany.” As he makes no distinction between Straid and 
Clonman}” we may suppose that, according to the information 
he received, these two names were applicable to one and the same 
]dace, viz. the now decayed village of Straid. At one time it was 
the principal village in the district. The toWnland in which the 
village of Straid is situated is also called Straid. 

Straid is about half a mile west of the present village of Clonmany. 
At the north-western end of Straid is the site of the ancient church 
which, according to local tradition, was founded by St. ColumkiUe. 
This was also the principal burial-ground in the parish down to 
the end of the 18th century. By Irish speakers in this district 
the old graveyard is always called Cluain Maine or Clua' Maine. 
(The vocalism in the initial syllable of Maine is short). The 
name is employed exclusively to designate either the graveyard 
or the parish. 

Among Irish speakers the modern village of Clonmany is called 
An Coirnedl (‘ the Corner ’). An old man living in the neighbour- 
hood informed me that there were only two or three houses there 
about a century ago. They stood in the angle formed by the 
Tandragee road and, I think, the old road going over the hill to 
Ballylifhn. No doubt the most important of them was the corner 
house. Hence the Irish name ‘ An Coirnedl."^ This prosaic name 
was not adopted by Enghsh speakers. 

About the middle of the last century the village was also known 
as Gaddyduff, i.e. the name of the townland in which it is situated. 
Harkin® mentions “ the town of Clonmany or Gaddyduh.” Accord- 
ing to the same writer Gaddyduff means ‘ black thief ’ (Ir. gadaidhe 
dubh), and he states that “ his (the black thief’s) village stiU 

® Pococke’s Tour in Ireland in 1752, p. 47. 

’ Top. Diet. 

® Inishowen : its History, Traditions, and Antiquities (1867), by Maghtochair 
(Michael Harkin). 



retains the name of Gaddyduff.” In the course of time Gaddyduff 
was displaced (though the local schoolhouse is still so called) by 
the more elegant name of Clonmany. 

The Lagan 

According to O’Donovan the ancient district of Magh lotha 
is “ now the Lagan, a beautiful tract in the barony of Raphoe 
(Co. Donegal) containing the church of Donaghmore.”® 

An examination of the references in the Onomasticon and else- 
where seems to show (u) that the Lagan and Magh lotha were 
not identical in the period 1300-1600 and (6) that the modern 
Lagan is more extensive than the ancient Magh lotha. 

In Colton’s ‘ Visitation ’ (1397) Mahya (Magh lotha) is the 
name of one the deaneries in the diocese of Derry. This deanery 
of Mahya comprehended all the parishes of the diocese of Derry 
which are in the modern county of Tyrone and in the barony of 
Raphoe, though, as Bishop Reeves^® points out, “ the territory 
proper extended only over the last portion, consisting of the 
parishes of Donaghmore, Urney, and Clonleigh.” It is curious 
to find a deanery so large as to include the county of Tyrone named 
from a district on its edge. As Reeves remarks, this was probably 
owing to the influence of Cenel Moen, who crossed over from Magh 
lotha proper into Tyrone. 

Magh lotha then w^as approximately that part of the barony 
of Raphoe lying between the SwiUy Burn and the Mourne Beg 
River. It extended also towards Ardstraw bridge in Co. Tyrone. 
The Onomasticon delimitation of Magh lotha agrees with that 
of Reeves. 

Let us now consider the extent of the Lagan. There are only 
two references to it in the Onomasticon, both of which relate to 
incidents occurring in the 16th century. In 1557 Shane O’NeiU 
led an army across the Finn, “ close to Raphoe, through the Lagan,” 
and encamped near Balleeghan.^^ The other reference in the 
Onomasticon will be considered later. 

According to Fr. Mooney’s enumeration (1617-1618) of the 
Franciscan monasteries^^ there was a house of his order at “ Bade 

® Top. Poems, note 87. 

Colton’s Visitation, p. 69. 

On the map appended to Eoin Mac Neill’s Celtic Ireland “ Magh Itha ” 
is imaccountably written across the district due west of Derry City. 

12 Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland. Here O’Donovan has the note ; 
“ This (the Lagan) is the name of a well-known district comprising the 
parishes of Taughboyne, Ryemoghy, and All Saints, in the barony of 


Fhidhetain (Baile Aghaidh Chaoin) san Laggan.” This was “ the 
rehgeous house or fryorie of Franciscans of Beleaghane ” in the 
barony of “ Raffoe ” mentioned in the Survey of Ulster (1608)A^ 

Balleeghan is in the old parish of Raymoghy, now included in 
the parish of All Saints. “ In the Roman Catholic divisions this 
parish (AU Saints) is the head of a district, called the union of the 
Lagan, and comprising also the parishes of Taughboyne, Killea, 
and Raymochy.”^^ In Levds’s description of Lough Swilly he 
states that its eastern side presents a tract of rich arable soil ex- 
tending towards Derry, under the general denomination of Blanket- 
nook (a townland in the parish of All Saints) and Laggan. 

The Lagan then lay along the south-eastern littoral of Lough 
SwiUy and extended almost to the city of Derry. “ The hill on 
which the Grianan of Aileach stood . . . commands the whole 

district of the Lagan.” 

One other reference to the Lagan is given in the Onomasticon. 
It relates to an invasion of TyrconneU by Art O’NeiU in 1511 : 
“ Sluaighedh lais O NeU, idon. Art mac Aodha, a Tir Conaill, 
dar loisc Glend Finne i Tir Enna “j an Lacan. Here a distinction 
seems to be made between Tir Enna and the Lagan. 

The former territory was roughly coextensive with the modern 
barony of Raphoe and must have included the Lagan, i.e. the 
stretch of country between the southern part of Lough SwiUy and 
the River Foyle. According to O’DonneU’s ‘ Betha Coluimb 
Chille ’ Raith Enaigh is in Tir Enna, and Raith Enaigh has been 
identified with Raymoghy which, as we have seen, is in the Lagan. 
The appearance of ‘ an Lacan ’ beside ‘ Tir Enna ’ in this entry 
is perhaps due to a desire to distinguish the lowlying country in 
the north of Tir Enna from the central and western uplands. 

On the other hand Tir Enna and the Lagan may have 
been regarded as two separate territories at some not very remote 
period in the past. HiU^® has printed a translation of an undated 
Irish tract “ preserved among the State papers ” which gives an 
account of “ the number of tuaths that are in TirconneU,” two of 
which are the tuath of Tir Enna, “ from the streamlet of Tamhafada 
unto Bel-atha-trona,” and the tuath of Lagan. The latter, in 
HiU’s opinion, was anciently Magh-Iotha. There can scarcely be 
any doubt that it was commensurate with the district now known 
as the United Parishes (AU Saints, Taughboyne, KUlea and Ray- 
moghy). However that may be, it seems clear that the Lagan 

Analecta Hibernica 6, p. 103. 

Analecta Hibernica 3, p. 190. 

Lewis, Top. Diet. The Donegal Highlands, p. 225. 

Annals of Ulster. Plantation in Ulster, p. 102. 



of history was not “ the beautiful tract in the barony of Raphoe 
containing the church of Donaghmore.” 

It is true, however, that in O’Donovan’s time the level country 
along the Foyle from Derry to Strabane was called the Lagan. 
At the present day the vaUey of the Foyle and, I think, the valley 
of the Mourne are often called the Lagan (an Lagan) by Irish 
speakers in West Donegal. 

Pococke does not include the Foyle, but “ all that country on 
the Fin(n) and the SwiUy is called the Laggan.”^^ 

As has been stated already the historic Lagan lay south-east 
of Lough SwiUy (this narrow part of the Lough is sometimes called 
the River SwiUy) and in the extreme north-east of the barony 
of Raphoe. In the last two centuries or so the denotation of the 
name was extended in popular usage to include the Foyle valley 
and the lands adjacent to the lower waters of the Finn. 


Early in the 18th century one of the principal fairs in Fermanagh 
was held at “ Castlecoul ahas BaUibrinsly.”^® 

As these names are now obsolete it may be of interest to identify 
the place so caUed. Our Castlecoul is not, as I hope to show, 
the Castlecoole at Enniskillen. 

In the district now known as the barony of Coole Sir John 
Wishart was granted, in 1610, ‘‘ the middle proportion called 
Latryme or Leitrim.” The lands in this proportion included 
Gort-camon (Gortgommon), Aghoieigheigh (Aghagay), Lurgaboy, 
and Enquillen (Drumquillen ?), aU of which lie around the modern 
town of Newtownbutler. 

About the same time another undertaker. Sir Stephen Butler, 
obtained a grant of some 3,000 acres at Belturbet, Co. Cavan. 
A few years later, having observed, hke Sir John Davies, that 
Fermanagh was “ so pleasant and fruitfiU a country,” he purchased 
Wishart’s property there. Butler also obtained possession of the 
adjoining lands of Michael BaKoure, called “ the middle proportion 
of KUspinan.”^^ 

Tour in Ireland in 1752, p. 67. 

Vox Stellarum : or, an Almanack for the Year of our Lord, 1723. Done 
at Cork, by John Coats. 

Plantation in Ulster, p. 301. 

Butler was the ancestor of the earls of Lanesborough. He came to 
Ireland from Bedfordshire and was not related to the Butlers of Ormond 
{see Hill’s Plantation, p. 281, note). 

22 Plantation in Ulster, p. 478. The proportions of Leitrim and Kilspinan 
are in the modern barony of Coole. In Hill they are entered imder the 
Precinct of Knockninny. 



Regarding Butler’s estate cites an interesting passage 

from an inquisition sped in the reign of Charles I. It shows that 
Newtowne, Castlecoole and Aghagay were names for one and the 
same place : “ The said proportions of Latr}^! and Kilspinan 
doe aU, or the most part thereof, lye within the parish of DrumuQy, 
The cite and rewens of the ancient church of DromuUy standeth 
verie remote, and in the woods uppon the uttermost south parte 
of the parish, towards the borders of the countie of Monaghan, 
about 7 myles distante from the north parte of the parish . . . 

It will be much more fitt and convenient, and a great furtherance 
and safetie unto the Englishe plantation, and the inhabitants 
thereabouts, to have the parish church erected within the towne 
of Newtowne al’ Castlecoole, wher the said great plantation of 
English now is, and wher there is a house builte . . . The faires 

and marketts formerlie graunted to be kepte upon the tate of land 
called Aghadee (Aghagay) al’ Castlecoole.” 

Quoting from an inquisition not specified HilU^ adds some 
information regarding Butler’s castle. About 1630 Butler had 
“ on his proportion of Latrym or Leitrim, at Aghadee and Corte- 
gamon (Gortgommon), a bawm of stone and lime . . . and that 

inside this enclosure he had erected a castle or capital-mansion . . . 
and at Drombrochas^^ another castle or capital-mansion.” 

Hill goes on to say that these buildings (he is manifestly referring 
to the buildings at Aghadee) were erected on the site of an old 
castle of the O’Cassidys, and that “ the same site is now occupied 
by the magnificent seat of the Earl of Belmore, known still by the 
old name of Castlecoole.” 

Now seeing that “ the seat of the Earl of Belmore ” is at Ennis- 
killen, some fifteen miles from Butler’s “ Aghadee al’ Castlecoole,” 
it is clear that HiU’s identification is erroneous. He does not 
attempt to explain why Butler should wish to remove his lessees 
(some thirty families “ of British Nation ”) entirely out of Ins 
own district to the neighbourhood of Enniskillen. 

Most of the townland names mentioned in the grants pertaining 
to the lands purchased by Butler may be identified in the Census 
list of townlands in the parishes of Galloon and DrummuUy. 

The name ‘ Castlecoole ’ became obsolete about the middle of 
the 18th century. ‘ Newtowne ’ survived and ‘ Butler ’ was 
added to it. Aghagay is the name of the townland which contains 

Plantation, p. 479. 

It is conjectured in Post-Sheanchas that the Irish form is Achadh Ge, 
which is probably correct. 

Plantation, p. 480. 

Now Drumbrughas, in the parish of Galloon. 



(or is beside) Newtownbutler. It remains to account for the name 
“ Ballibrinsly,” the alias in Coats’s ‘ Almanack.’ 

Sir Stephen Butler married Mary, the youngest daughter of 
Gervase Brinsley (or Brindsley) of Nottinghamshire. No doubt 
BaUibrinsly was named after her with a view to perpetuating the 
name of Brinsley. 

Stephen Butler had acquired another estate at Belturbet. When 
he died (1631) this property was re -granted for his son as the 
manor of “ Castlebutler al’ Belturbet.” In the 18th century 
fairs were held at “ Belturbet alias Ballybutler.”^^ Of these 
abases only the old Irish name Belturbet (Beal Tairbirt) has sur- 

To return to Castlecoole. Even the ruins of Butler’s castle 
there seem to have disappeared. Lewis (1837) states : “ This place 
(Newtownbutler) gives the inferior title of baron to the family of 
Butler, Earls of Lanesborough, and it was once the seat of that 
family, of whose mansion no vestige can now be traced.”^® 

Butler’s Castlecoole was obviously named after the old Irish 
territory in which he had built it, viz. Cut na nOirear. The latter 
gave its name also to the barony. Brian Mag Mathghamhna 
raided Cul na nOirear in 1486 and kiUed Eamonn (3g Mag Uidhir 
at Daire Chenainn, now Derrycanon.^^ As this townland is in 
the parish of Gaboon it goes to show that Ciil na nOirear is to be 
identibed with the barony of Coole. 

Castlecoole at Enniskiben seems to have derived its name from 
another place cabed Cul (Coole) in the modern barony of Tirkennedy. 
In 1610 Roger Attkinson received a grant of land in this barony, 
and not far from Enniskiben. The premises were created the 
manor of Coole. In the same barony Bryan Maguire was granted, 
with other parcels of land, one tate (about 60 Irish acres) in Coole. 
In the Annals of Ulster there are references to Art Cube Maguire 
and Ua Caiside Cube, “ chief physician of Fermanagh.” 

The Onomasticon identibes (wrongly, as I think) this Cul with 
the barony of Coole. It is signibcant that Babycassidy is also 
in the barony of Tirkennedy. 


This vibage is in the parish of Termonmaguirk, Co. Tyrone. 
The townland name is also Sixmilecross. 

28 Henry’s Lough Erne in 1739, p. 20, note ; Hill’s Plantation, p. 281, note. 

28 Coats’s Almanack. 8® Top. Diet. 

8^ Annals of Ulster. 82 Plantation, pp. 335, 492. 

88 Plantation, p. 336. 


The Irish name given in ‘ Post-Sheanchas ’ is Tulach Neill. 
The lands granted to the Earl of Castlehaven in this district in- 
cluded ‘ Tolloneal,’ but I can find nothing to show that Sixmilecross 
was ever known by this name. 

An official of the Ordnance Survey (circ. 1835) has noted in the 
Name-book relating to this district that the “ Irish name of this 
townland (Sixmilecross) by which it is known in the County Books 
is ‘ Coragh ’ or ‘ Caragh.’ ” And Na Curracha{i) or Na Curmcha{i) 
Mora is the name in use among Irish speakers in Co. Tyrone at 
the present day. Furthermore, on Norden’s map ‘ Carough 
Moore ’ is Written across the district lying to the south-west of 
‘ Tarmon McGuirke.’ 

O’Neill’s Island Habitation at Stewartstown 

When Aodh 6 Neill, Earl of Tyrone, was travelling from MeUifont 
to Rathmullen in September, 1607, he passed through Dungannon 
and went on to Craobh, “ baile oilein dia bailtibh ” (one of his 
island habitations) where he rested for the night. Fr. Meehan^^ 
identifies Craobh with Crew near Battleford, some miles south of 
Dungannon. Fr. P. Walsh^® has rightly conjectured that An 
Chraobh, or rather “ Lo Creue,” must have lain to the north of 
Dungannon and not far from Stewartstown, for among Irish speakers 
in Munterloney (Co. Tyrone) the Irish name of Stewartstown is 
An Chraobh. 

Andrew Stewart (later Baron Castlestewart) was granted the 
large proportion of ReveUinowtra and the small proportion of 
Revelineightra in the Precinct of Mountjoy in Co. Tyrone.^® Most, 
if not all, of the denominations mentioned in Stewart’s grant lie 
in the parishes of Clonoe, Donaghenry, Arboe and Tamlaght. 

In 1611 Stewart was “preparing stone, brick, and lime for 
building a castle, which he means to finish next Spring.” This 
castle was to be known later as the Castle of Crew or Castlestewart. 

On Taylor and Skinner’s map (p. 27) there is showm a small 
lake on the east side of Stewartstown. Close to the lake there 
is a residence named “ Castle Stewart,” and somewhere here 
Andrew' Stewart erected his castle. There is a small island in 
the lake, and this no doubt was the site of O’Neill’s habitation. 

Flight of the Earls (ed. by Fr. P. Walsh), p. 7. 

Fate and Fortunes of Hugh O’Neill (3rd ed.), p. 76. 
Flight of the Earls, corrigenda. 

Sgealta Mhuintir Luinigh, p. 41. 

Plantation in Ulster, p. 286. 

Carew’s Report, printed in Plantation in Ulster, p. 546. 



“ In the centre of RevelinoWtra,” Hill remarks, “ there is shown 
on the map (Baronial map of 1609) a small lake, and near it a 
bog, from which a stream flows eastward to Lough Neagh.” 

The castle was burnt in the Rebellion of 1641. In a deposition^® 
relating to the outbreak of the rebellion Nicholas Combe, sometime 
of Dungannon in County Tyrone, stated that “ he had often 
heard one Turlogh groome O’ Quin of Moneygore in the Co. of 
Tyrone confess that ... he with his servants and followers 
took the Castle of Crew als. Castle -ste wart and burned the same.” 
The castle, as such, does not seem to have been restored after 
the burning. In 1837 there were some remains of the old castle, 
but they had long been in a neglected state, and retained scarcely 
any traces of their original character. 

Cloch Mhor thoir na niarla 

Arthur Bennett, the Irish scribe and poet, who lived at BaUykeel 
in the parish of ForkhiU, Co. Armagh, in the first half of the 19th 
century, mentions a large stone called Cloch Mhor thoir na niarla 
(‘ the big east stone of the earls ’) in two of his poems. The lines 
containing the name read : Aige cloch mhor thoir na niarlla chas 
deilbh chrion lorn Hath Horn (at the big east stone of the earls I 
met a withered thin grey-haired figure), and Chiiartaidh siad gach 
cornal (leg. coirnedl) o chloch mhor thoir na n-iarlla go rannaihh 
na Boinne (they searched every corner from the big east stone of 
the earls to the lands of the Boyne). The two poems are in No. 7 
of Fr. Donnellan’s collection of manuscripts.^^ On the first of 
the two citations Bennett has the note : “ This huge stone is on 
the road side in the townland of BaUykeel.” 

Who the earls w^ere one can only conjecture. Hugh O’NeUl, 
who pitched his camp at Mullaghbane in 1597, may have been one 
of them. It Would be interesting to know if this stone is stiU in 


Charles Poynts was granted 200 acres in this district in 1600.^^ 
The premises were created “ the manor of Brennoge.” In Pynnar’s 
Survey it is stated that “ Lieutenant Poyns hath 200 acres, caUed 
Curriator. Upon this there is a Bawne of 80 feet square . 
with a House in it.”^^ This house, no doubt, was the beginning 

Printed in Marshall’s History of Dungannon, p. 119. 

Lewis, Top. Diet., s.v. Stewartstown. 

c/. The Irish Book Lover, vol. xxii, p. 32. 

Plantation in Ulster, p. 312. Plantation in Ulster, p. 571. 


of the town which was to be known later as Poyntzpass. Brennoge 
(Brannock) is now merely a toWnland name, and Curriator seems 
to be entirely forgotten. Hill, who could not discover the name 
in any inquisition, thought it was a mistake or misprint for 
Orriereightra, i.e. Lower Orior, now the name of a barony in the 
east of Co. Armagh. But the name seems to have been well known 
in South-East Ulster in the 1 7th century. Sir James Turner 
states in his Memoirs^^ that he “ had a meeting (in 1643) with an 
Irish ColoneU, one Thurlo O’Neale sent by Sir Philemy. We 
met at Kirriotter . . . and after ane houre’s discourse and the 

drinking of some healths in Scotch aquavitie and Irish uskiba, 
we concluded a cessation of arms.” He states that ‘ Kirriotter ’ 
was “ seven miles from the Neurie ” (NeWry). Poyntzpass is 
about eight miles from Newry. ‘ Curriator ’ and ‘ Kirriotter ’ 
then are two attempts at spelling the one Irish name. 

According to ‘ Post-Sheanchas ’ the Irish of Poyntzpass is Baile 
Churraigh an Tuir. That currach, ‘ a marsh,’ forms part of the 
name is almost certain. According to Lewis^® the place “ was 
formerly an encumbered pass through bogs and woods, from the 
county of Down into that of Armagh, and from the O’Hanlons’ 
to the Magennises’ country.” The Post-Sheanchas interpretation 
of the final syllable is extremely doubtful. Tur would be repre- 
sented by -ture, or something similar, indicating a long ?^-sound. 
Both -e(r), -o(r) point to a short vowel. It is very probable that 
the Irish form was An Currach lochtair, ‘ the lower marsh (or 
bog).’ Cf. Achad Ichtair and Cell Ichtair in the Onomasticon. 


Athleague is on the River Suck, and in the north-west of the 
barony of Athlone, Co. Roscommon. 

The Onomasticon has Ath Liacc. In Kilbegnet parish the 
name is pronounced An Liag. An ( =Athan ?), as a side form of 
Ath, ‘ ford,’ occurs in the Irish of South Armagh. 


Ballyforan is in the parish of Taghboy and in the barony of 
Athlone, Co. Roscommon. The village of “ BaUiforan ” is shown 
in Taylor and Skinner (p. 77) on the Roscommon side of the Suck. 

The relevant passages are printed in Fitzpatrick’s ‘ Bloody Bridge,’ 
pp. 49, 50. 

Top. Diet., s.v. Poyntz-Pass. 

A. Sommerfelt, South Armagh Irish, §29. 



It is conjectured in ‘ Post-Sheanchas,’ I and II, that the Irish 
form is Baile Fuardn. This form has been adopted in ‘ Eoluidhe an 
Phuist ’ and it appears also on sign posts in East Galway. Hogan’s 
Onomasticon has Bel Atha Feorainne. In close agreement with 
this is the form I have heard from Irish speakers in East Galway 
(near Creggs), viz. Beal Ath’ Feorainn. Beul Atha Fedrain in 
23H33, R.I.A. (Cat. p. 2175) relates no doubt to the same place. 


Ballygar is in the parish of Killeroran, and in the barony of 
Killian, Co. Galway. 

Following ‘ Post-Sheanchas,’ Part I., Baile Gcarr, an erroneous 
interpretation of this name, appears in ‘ Eoluidhe an Phuist.’ 
Dr. Hyde'^® and Risteard O Foghludha^® write Beal Ath Ghdrtha. 
This orthography correctly represents the pronunciation of Irish 
speakers in the parish of Kilbegnet, which adjoins KiUeroran. 

A certain Baggot once lived in Ballygar whose propensity for 
summoning the peasantry for slight infringements of the law is 
still remembered. Here is a warning which an old man addressed 
to his dog : — 

Fag a* bealach, a mhada Ha go dalba ddna ! 

Nach bhfuil fhios agat go bhfuil Baggot i mBeal Ath' 
Ghdrtha ? 

Which may be rendered thus : — 

Leave the way, you bold impudent dog ! 

Don’t you know that Baggot is in Ballygar ? 

Baile na Sagart 

In Fr. Mooney’s account of the Irish Franciscan monasteries 
there is the entry : “ Est et aliud monasterium horum in patria 
de muy breackry prope pagum vocatum srdid mhuidhe breacraidhe 
dioecesis Ardachadensis, an sit comitatus Westmediae an vero 
Longfort quae Connaciae pars est, dubito. Locus vocatur baile 
na sagairt."^'^ 

Magh Breacraighe is the old name of the plain lying north of 
the Inny in the barony of Moygoish, Co. Westmeath, and extending 

Abhrain agus Danta an Reachtabhraigh (1933), p. 247. 

5“ From Tomas 0 Lochain, Camderry, Creggs, Co. Galway. 
Analecta Hibernica 6, p. 104. 


northwards into the Co. Longford. Reference is made to the 
parish church of “ Sraid Maigi Breacrai ” in a document dated 


The Ardagh Baile na Sagart is not mentioned in the Census 
Alphabetical Index (1851), but according to Coats’s ‘ Almanack ’ 
there was a fair at “ Balhnesagard alias CuUivore ” in Co. Longford. 
CuUivore is now CuUyvore,^^ a townland in the civil parish of 
Mostrim, which adjoins the parish of Street. The Franciscan 
monastery then would appear to have been in the townland of 

Levis55 states that “ of the priories at BaUynasaggard, Kilglass, 
and St. Johnstown, no vestiges of the original buildings remain, and 
their actual site is matter of doubt.” 

*2 Misc. Irish Arch. Soc. 1, p. 298. 

De Annatis Hibemiae 1, p. 173. 

In the Census Index Cullyvore is coupled with Ballindagny. 
Top. Diet. s.v. Longford (county of). 





UH.TS .F ..,.TU^6« F. OF FFF«- =«. 












( 89 ) 


By O. Davies. 


B ALLYRENAN Cloghogle is situated close to the western 
boundary of Baronscourt demesne. It is shewn on O.S. 
(1908) Tyrone, sheet 17 plan 14 trace 5, at a height of about 
480' above sea level. ^ A century ago it was probably covered by 
cairn, and standing in close proximity to the dyke of the county 
road, it would have attracted little attention. The O’Donovan 
Memoirs of the 1835 O.S. do not mention it. 

The monument was excavated in 1907 by Lady Alexandra 
Hamilton, who found a flint arrowhead and some stone beads, 
now on loan in Belfast Museum and to be described below. Parts 
of it had already been disturbed, but Back Chamber II was then 
for the first time disinterred from rubbish and caim^. 

Mr. Ross Henderson of Newtownstewart has long been interested 
in the place ; I visited it in 1932 and Mr. Raleigh Radford in 1935. 
The latter urged re-excavation, especially to determine the form of 
the cairn, as the complexity of the structure made a judgment as 
to its nature precarious from surface indications. In fact the 
solution, though simple, was not guessed before Work began. 

The excavation w^as carried out in June 1936 with the aid of 
Mr. L. McAleer, my foreman also at Dun Ruadh, and three labourers. 
It was financed by the Prehistoric Research Fund of the Belfast 
Museum, where finds are deposited, and by the government un- 
employment grant for archaeological research. Thanks are par- 
ticularly due to Capt. Ross, manager of the Baronscourt Estates 
Ltd., for permission to dig, while His Grace the Duke of Abercom 
and Lord Hamilton, on whose estate the monument lies, shewed 
great interest. 

The monument (see plan) consists of one chamber with portals 
on the east (called Front Chamber) and of two on the west (called 
Back Chamber I and II). Several large stones are lying about, 
especially south of the Front Chamber, but it could not be discovered 

1 See plan and sections, in which a standard bench-mark at 478' is taken. 
2 Cochrane, J. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland xxxvii (1907) p. 399; Lawlor, 
Ulster Archaeology and Antiquities p. 20, fig. 6. An old man told me that 
he remembers two capstones covering the Front Chamber, perhaps 70 years 
ago. This can hardly have been accessible to excavators rmtil these were 


that they represent the ruins of further structures. The remains 
of a well-built dyke block the front portals, while traces of another, 
bounding an old road, curve round the south and west of the Back 
Chambers. This road was abandoned about fifty years ago, and is 
now grass-grown ; but its metalling has not been removed, and 
the lowering of its level has destroyed the south-west corner of 
the cairn (cp. Section AA), and possibly the whole of the west 
end, as it is not certain that the boundary of the orange floor 
established in the north-west corner (see plan) is original. It may 
be said at once, to avoid confusion, that the Back Chambers will 
be shewn to be an addition to the original monument. 

The whole was presumably covered by a cairn, and rested on a 
floor of orange clay 6" — 1' thick, whose limits, 45' by 18', have been 
dotted on the plan. This floor was bounded by low kerb-stones, of 
which few were in situ ; ^ but shallow pits in till and deep-set 
stones used for wedging indicated their position (see plan and 
sections). The cairn was thus approximately rectangular with 
rounded corners on the east, and did not extend beyond the Front 
Portals. The floor was set after the kerb-stones, and ends vertically, 
sometimes with allowance for a slight spread, where they have been 

Mention may be made of a grooved stone found to the south of 
the cairn (see plan and finds). It is a roughly cubical block of 
schist, with one angular edge which may have been set in the ground. 
It is grooved with irregular patterns on one face and the adjoining 
part of another ; on the “ top-face ” the grooves are distinct, of 
semicircular section, J — f" across and deep ; on the “ side- 
face ” they are weathered and less convincing. They may be 
plough-marks ; but their shape, the lack of one determined 
direction, and the occurrence on two faces suggest that the stone 
formed part of the kerb, and was grooved for magical or other 
purposes on the two exposed sides, the top and the upper part of 
the front. Patterned stones occur along with cupmarks (see below) 
on other monuments, such as Sess Kilgreen, but the patterns are 
usually more regular. 

3 Large flat stones in the north-west comer and in trenches BB north, 
DD north and EE south may be fallen kerb-stones. 

^ Vertically in the middle of the south side, though the kerb-stone has 
swivelled, see plan. For cross-sections see drawings, especially CC. In BB 
vertically on north, on south with a slight spread over what may be a fallen 
kerbstone, while beyond is natural yellow subsoil with loose tumbled stones 
and a brown layer containing hazel and oak charcoal, probably imconnected 
with the monument. It might be a cist-floor, but there are no pits for side- 
stones, and brown earth round some small stones sunk into the yellow sub- 
soil may be due to roots. The brown layer is sometimes slightly mixed with 


The relation of the orange floor to the Back Chambers need not 
yet be discussed. It seems to have been laid down contempora- 
neously with the construction of the Front Chamber, as the uprights 
and their wedge-stones are bedded in it without disturbance.® 
The south portal-stone rests on till, the base of the north could 
not be exactly determined. Till sinks here, as if it had been dug 
out to insert the portal-stones ; they were rammed round with 
orange clay, which also filled the space between them.® 

Under the south sidestone of the Front Chamber most of the 
orange floor has been replaced by yellow-brown earth, whose 
limits to the south and east are shewn on the plan (see also section 
BB). This earth extends a short way inside the chamber at the 
west side of the south portal and along the south sidestone, and 
overlies the orange floor diagonally. A piece of pot D was found 
outside the chamber, another in its loose disturbed filling, clearly 
derived from the yellow-brown area. Thus the disturbance must 
have taken place between the spreading of the floor and the con- 
struction of the chamber, but its object is problematical. 

The point of the south sidestone (see section AA, elevation facing 
south) rests on till, and round it the yellow-brown floor is replaced 
by black. This suggests disturbance ; the stone seems to have 
shpped, probably when the roof was removed. Its base had been 
slightly to the north and 5" higher, while a groove in it would fit 
excellently the shoulder on the south portal-stone. If it has thus 
also toppled, its side would originally have been nearly parallel 
to that of the portal-stone, and the intervening space could have 
been filled with dry walling. 

The stratification of the Front Chamber was disturbed by previous 
excavation. It appears from the report‘d that this had been carried 
out before Lady Alexandra Hamilton’s time. The filling w'as mainly 
black earth with yellow pockets, presumably shovelled back. The 
absence of finds in this mixed material, save for one piece of pot 
D known to be derived from the early disturbance in the floor 
(see above), shews that the chamber must either have been empty 
or have contained unbroken vessels, which have been removed. At 
the edges of the stones the orange floor survives. In the south- 

^ Cp. Sections AA and BB. The end-stone rests at the corners in orange 
which abuts against it ; on the west side the orange is denuded, but some 
caim-stones prop the upright. The north sidestone is bedded into orange, 
its wedge-stones are piled nearly down to till. For the south sidestone see 
below. The septal stone rests nearly, if not quite, on till, and the orange 
abuts against it and its wedgestones. 

® This space is hollow and must have been partially excavated. It was 
not thought safe to probe too far in this area. 

’Cochrane, J. R. Soc. Antiq. Ireland xxxvii (1907) p. 399. 


east corner its sloping surface is bleached to a depth of J", but 
this was not noticed in the north-western quadrant. Its cause is 
uncertain ; it must be some factor introduced since the excavation 
of the chamber, and so cannot be podsolisation."^^ 

In the north-western and south-eastern corners, where the orange 
floor survives to its original height, its top is somewhat dirty, 
and overlain by a thin black layer containing charcoal, which 
probably once covered the whole chamber. Hazel charcoal was 
found in the disturbed earth of the chamber and on till.® 

In front of the front portal much disturbance had been caused 
by the old dyke, which was well-built and rested on the lower 
subsoil. Though the sloping stone at the entrance is due to chance, 
the large horizontal one seems to be structural (see plan and section 
AA) ; it is sealed with hard white sand, which overlies the lower 
subsoil diagonally, but meets the orange floor almost vertically. 
In the dyke are two small stones south-east of the south portal- 
stone, set deeply on edge. It was difficult to determine whether 
they form part of the dyke, or, like the line of stones in front of 
the Back Chambers, are an original feature. 

Further out were found considerable remains of three pots (A — C), 
and pieces of hazel willow and oak charcoal. Though it seemed 
possible in this area to distinguish two layers, perhaps separated 
by a fragmentary black line, the sherds of the various pots could 
not be sorted accordingly, and the absence of finds in the refill 
of the Front Chamber makes it unlikely that the upper layer 
consists of outcast from it, though it may be derived from between 
the Portal-stones. 

Behind the Front Chamber are several cairn-stones, mostly 
loose. One large one stands on edge (cp. section AA elevation 
facing south), but it could not be discovered that it had formed the 
wall of a subsidiary chamber or cist, though it was tested on both 
sides ; on its north was a small black pocket on the floor, containing 
hazel charcoal. A little charcoal of hazel willow and some species 
of Pyrus was found north of Back Chamber I in the orange floor. 

The Back Chambers have suffered considerable damage, especially 
to the roof (see plan, sections AA, DD, EE). On the east are two 
portals of roughly equal height. The southern has probably swivelled 
owing to disturbance of the roof (described below’'), as a depression 

i.e., leaching of the upper layer of the soil by acid water, usually by rain 
charged with carbonic acid and acids formed by certain plants such as 
heather. This leaching gives to moorland and other soils a distinctive profile, 
at the top whitish with dissolution of the iron and alumunium, then deep 
yellow with deposition of minerals, then the natural colom, usually pale 

® The charcoal specimens were most kindly examined by Mr. M. Y. Orr 
of the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. 

Plate X.] 

[To face i>age 92. 

General view from South-west. 

Back Chambers ; South side. 

Ballyrenan ClO(!IIOGLE. 


on its outer side Would have held the point of the sides tone. It 
was impossible to dig under the base, but the north edge is bedded 
in black earth, the south-eastern in brown at a height of 477-6. 
Thus there was no proof from the floor that the stone had shifted, 
as it seems bedded above the orange clay. The north portal-stone 
apparently stands at an equally high level. 

Between the portal-stones is a sills tone, placed aslant. Though 
it does not touch the north jamb, it is much too long to be set at 
right angles across the entrance, even allowing for a swivel of 6" 
of the south jamb. It is sunk more deeply than the portal-stones, 
and rests on black earth Y below a hard grey- white layer which 
may form the top of the foundation of the portal. But at its base 
was a modern sherd, so it must have been dug round and may have 
been set up after the previous excavation. 

The sidestones of both chambers rest on black earth at a high 
level. Even their bases were exposed on the inside, which caused 
them to be displaced ; for instance, the north sidestone of Chamber 
I no longer rests against the portal-stone, that of Chamber II is 
loose. In Chamber I both sidestones are supported by two tiers 
of wedgestones, of which even the lower is above the level of the 
orange floor. In Chamber II the wedgestones of the south sidestone 
rest on the dirty mixed top of the orange ; under one of them were 
fragments of cremated bone at a height of 477-1 (25), shewing 
that the structure was built round the bones, which were laid in 
position flrst. 

The septal stone between the two chambers rests several inches 
into dirty whitish earth, which abuts against it on the west and 
replaces the orange floor (section AA). This earth must have, 
been used for packing the stone, which for security had to be sunk 
deep. The endstone rests on black earth, but its wedge-stones lie? 
on a grey-white layer dug into the orange floor, probably as a 

The portal-stones are supported by a deep-set pile of boulders, 
packed round with yellow -brown earth which replaces the orange 
(see plan, section AA). The foundation was disturbed by us as 
little as possible. On top of the yellow-brown was an uneven brown 
stratum, becoming blacker to the north, and containing many 
fragments of pot G and hazel and oak charcoal, in its turn covered 
by some stones which probably formed the base of the cairn. 
Between the portal-stones is a layer of hard white sand, sandwiched 
between two yellow-brown levels, and perhaps acting as a firmer 
foundation for the portal itself. 

On the south side of this area is a row of flat slabs, ahgned on the 
north (cp. plan, sections CC and AA elevation facing south) and. of 
uneven height, resting on a thin layer of black earth above the 


orange or yellow-brown floor. On the north side no convincing line 
could be found, but there w^ere several stones, probably the base 
of the cairn rather than a rough pavement. The southern line must 
how^ever be intentional ; it may have formed a small forecourt 
to the chamber, and it is noteworthy that on the south-east of the 
Front Portal w^ere two stones set on edge, with nothing again 
corresponding on the north (see above). In what may have been 
the forecourt of the Back Chambers was a pit in the orange floor, 
fllled with stones and dark earth but yielding no finds ; there 
were similar mysterious pits in the forecourt at Browmdod.^ 

The roof of the Back Chambers must have undergone serious 
damage (see plan, sections AA, CC, DD, EE). Resting on the 
south portal-stone and leaning against the north is a lintel-slab 
w'hich serves no function as it is immediately overlain by the cap- 
stone. Another lintel-slab rests on the corner of the septal stone 
and the north sidewalls of Chambers I and II, and projects 2J' 
north from the sidewall of Chamber I ; it also has no purpose. 
The capstone of Chamber II rests on the back lintel-slab, the end- 
stone and the south sidestone ; it is tilted to the south-east and 
encroaches a little on Chamber I. The capstone of Chamber I 
rests on that of II, the north portal-stone and the front lintel-slab ; 
it is tilted north. 

This roof is in complete disorder and violates aU the rules of 
megalithic construction. Probably it was disturbed in an im- 
successful attempt to force out the back lintel-stone, and may be 
restored thus. The south portal-stone is a few inches higher than 
the north, though both are flat- topped ; its known displacement 
may have raised it. Allowing for the swivel, the outer edges of the 
portal-stones w^ould be 4' 6" — 4' 8" apart, the inner 2' 10". The 
block resting on them is 4' 10" long, and was probably a lintel. 
It may have been tilted about 5" to the north, if the south portal- 
stone stands at its original height ; or a depression on its under side 
may have held a padding- stone to top the north portal-stone. 
The capstone of Chamber I would have rested on the front lintel 
and the capstone of II ; it may have tilted a httle westwards, 
but Would have been almost level crossways. A depression in its 
north-west corner probably keyed into a shoulder in the capstone 
of Chamber II. The back lintel must have rested on the septal 
stone, and would just overlap the back sidestones. The endstone 
is flat-topped on the north, but seems broken on the south. The 
back capstone probably rested on it and on the back lintel, when 
it would have been almost horizontal, and would have cleared 
both sidewalls, as capstones usually do. 

® Proc. Belfast Natural History and Philosophical Soc. (1934/5) p. 70. 


The gap between the sidestones and the roof must have been 
filled with dry walling, which would have rested on the flat-topped 
sidestones of Chamber I, and was probably keyed back by the 
surrounding cairn. The roof -stones of “ dolmen ” chambers are 
normally supported on the two portal-stones and the endstone, 
while the sidestones if they exist are fairly low. 

Both the back capstones have on the upper face several cupmarks, 
whose positions are shewn by crosses on the plan. Other markings 
are mentioned in the 1907 report on one of the structural stones, 
but have not been identified. The capstones also of the Front 
Chamber are said to have been cupmarked. The large recumbent 
stone east of the portal (see plan) has no marks on its present upper 
face and is too heavy to turn over ; nor is it certain that it was a 
capstone, as the indistinct photographs in the 1907 report seem 
to shew it upright to the south-east of the south portal-stone, as 
if it formed part of the dyke. 

Back Chamber I was excavated by Lady Alexandra Hamilton ; 
it yielded seven stone beads (see below) and some scraps of bone 
and pottery, which have been lost.^® Some of the stones in it seemed 
burnt. The filling in 1936 was black earth containing modern 
pottery and glass (sections AA, DD), though in most places there 
remained a little dirty orange floor above the till, while the south- 
west corner was carefully packed with boulders, perhaps in 1907. 
Considering the contents, it was not thought worth while to dig 
more than two cross -trenches. Outside the chamber to the south 
were found several pieces of pot E, mainly in topsoil, and a few 
of pot F ; these must have been thrown out in riddling the earth 
of Chamber I and perhaps of Chamber II, though, if the burial 
was deposited before the construction of the chambers, fragments 
of the same pot would not be confined to one of them.^^ 

The filhng of Back Chamber II (sections AA, EE), consists of 
large boulders, often set firm and supporting structural stones, 
which made sectioning difficult ; among these is black earth. I 
was told that Lady Alexandra Hamilton excavated only the surface, 
and as spades were then used the workmen could not descend to 
any depth. Nor does the black earth look disturbed beyond an inch 
or two down, except perhaps in the north-east corner, as shewn 
by a dotted line on section EE. Wedged among the stones and down 
to the level of the floor were pieces of pots E and F, cremated 

One sherd is figured in the 1907 report, but its type cannot be identified 
from the report ; I suspect that it may have formed part of pot E. The 
thin bead BM3 and the fiints may have come from Back Chamber II, according 
to a workman who assisted at the excavation. 

A piece of cremated bone was found a long way to the north, outside 
the limits of the cairn. It must also have been thrown out. 


bones and hazel and oak charcoal. The stones must have been 
laid down to seal the burial, or perhaps some cairn-stones were 
left in position and the pottery sank between them. 

The level of the orange floor varies, and at the ends of the chamber 
it is replaced by grey- white sand. Under the foundations of the 
north sidewall at the east end the grey-white becomes nearly 
black. Thus the orange floor was partly dug away to bed the 

The evidence presented leaves little doubt that the Back Chambers 
are secondary. This accounts for the high level of the sidestones, 
while the principal weight was taken by the portals and the septal 
stone, where the orange floor was disturbed. It is unusual, though 
not impossible, that the secondary be larger than the primary ; 
in this case its construction must have involved the removal of 
nearly half the cairn. The close similarity of pots F (from Back 
Chamber II) and G (from above the foundation of the portals) 
to B and C (from in front of the Front Chamber) makes it probable 
that the secondary was constructed not long after the primary. 
This is borne out by the late neolithic character of the pottery, 
whereas at that date we should expect something more complex 
than a single-chambered grave without horns. So both primary 
and secondary must belong to the very end of the neolithic period, 
and are probably separated by less than a century. 

The original monument was a single -chambered cist with two 
massive portal-stones, a type which probably marks a degenerate 
stage in the break-up of the horned cairn. Many parallels are 
known ; from the same district may be cited Crosh, Keerin and 
probably Carricklee. It was not previously known that these 
monuments have long cairns ; indeed, the one excavated at Clonlum 
(Armagh) seemed to be circular. The early date of Ballyrenan 
is also surprising, unless the bronze age culture penetrated slowly 
into Tyrone, and panel-decorated pottery, knovm from Co. Down 
and Antrim as an intermediate stage between neolithic ware and 
the developed food- vessel, never reached the interior. 

The Finds. 

In front of the east chamber were many rough sherds, perhaps 
representative of at least four pots, though not more than three 
could be deflnitely distinguished. The allocation of sherds was in 

Prof. Walmesley reports that the bones from this chamber have been 
well incinerated. Fragments of human skull and limb bones were recognised. 
Co. Louth Archaeological Journal, viii (1934), p. 165. 


many cases uncertain. The surface has often decayed, and many 
pieces have split down the centre owing to bad baking. 

Pot A is red on outside and grey-black on inside save at rim. 
Very little of the surface survives, but no decoration is visible. 
The thickness at the rim is 6 mms., of the walls up to 12 mms. 
The only shape was one piece of plain rim ; the pot may have been 
a small round- bottomed bowl. 

Pot B is yellow on the outside to the depth of about 1 mm., 
while the biscuit and inner surface are grey and contain many 
small pebbles. The outside is fairly smooth but crumbly, the 
thickness 7 mms. There are several fragments of a collared rim 
15 mms. deep ; the only one with good surface is polished with 
vertical ripple-marks. There are also pieces of an angular relief - 
shoulder, of which one bulges out as if towards a lug ; this also has 
vertical ripple-ornament. The curve of the neck must have been 
concave. The collared rim is unusual, but otherwise the pot is of 
the common type of wide neolithic bowl. 




Pot C is 7-8 mms. thick, of harder texture than B ; the colour 
is grey ; many small pebbles are occluded. To this pot belongs 
neolithic pointed shoulder pinched out and grooved with a sharp 
instrument, perhaps the finger-nail. The rolled rim illustrated 
may belong to this pot, as it does not fit in elsewhere in this 

Pot D consists of two shapeless fragments from the disturbance 
in the orange floor to the south of the Front Chamber, with which 
may be associated two pieces, including a simple flattened rim, 
from a high level on the south-east of the South Portal-stone. The 
surface is hard and grey, the thickness 5 mms. 

Probably three pots are connected with the Back Chambers. 
G was found in a black layer in front of the portal, and can hardly 
be outcast from the chamber, though its shape is identical with 
that of F. Pieces of E occurred in the west half of Back Chamber 
II ; there may be two fragments mixed with G, and certainly 
several pieces of E and F were found to the south of the chambers, 
where they may have been thrown out during the previous excava- 
tion. Indeed, the principal sherd found then seems to have 
belonged to E (see above). 

Pot E is lO-II mms. thick, with little grit in the biscuit. The 
colour varies from red to grey- black. There may be soot-stains 
near the base. One fragment is partly thinned out to receive a line 
of cord-decoration. Another piece was perforated by a hole 6 mms. 
across from the outside before baking ; this may be just below the 
rim, but one cannot be certain that the top of this sherd as represen- 
ted in the illustration is not a break. The shape cannot be identified. 

Pot F is 5-8 mms. thick, sometimes nearly black on the outside,, 
though the inner surface and biscuit are reddish. The biscuit 
contains few j)ebbles. The outer surface is almost certainly slipped, 
smoothed and slightly polished. The pot was a wide, probably 
round- bottomed bowl of usual neolithic form, with rolled rim, 
concave neck and very angular shoulder ; the profile of the rim 
varies in different pieces, the height of the neck is 44 mms. The 
diameter of the mouth must have been 20-30 cms. 

Pot G is represented by about 200 fragments. The labour 
required to obtain joins was not thought worth while, as the type 
is well-known. The profile of rim and shoulder varies considerabh', 
but it is probable that only one pot existed. Most of the rim was 
found to the north, as if it had broken on its side. The diameter 
was nearly 30 cms. The surface is red or brown, sometimes badl}' 
weathered, the biscuit brown with small pebbles. There is no 
slip, but traces of polishing on inside and outside. The rim is 
rolled, bent over or thickened, in one case triangulax’ ; transitional 


types occur. The neck was concave, more than 4 cms. high ; the 
total height of the bowl may have been about 15 cms. The shoulder 
is angular, pinched out and rolled over. 

Three Worked flints were found, the first two in the previous 
excavation. BM9 is a roughly rectangular hollow scraper, of diagonal 
measurements 3-5 by 4-1 cms., thickness 1-5 mms. The hollow is 
about a quarter of a flattened oval, of chord 2-9 cms. There is 
line secondary working along it. The under face is a flake-surface 
with bulb, the upper three flake-surfaces. 

BMIO is a leaf -shaped arrow not quite regular at the butt, 3- 9' 
by 2-0 cms. by *4 maximum thickness. The upper side is chipped, 
the lower formed by a flake-surface retouched round the edges. 

16 was found close to the surface above the east end of the dis- 
turbance in front of the Back Portal. It is a two-bladed knife 
made from a curved flake, with bulb at point which has been 
partly removed. The lower side is a flake-surface, the upper partly 
so and partly cortex ; along the edge of the latter there has been 
much retouching. The butt has been shaped into a curved tang.. 
The knife is 10-1 cms. long, with greatest width of blade 2-7, of 
tang 1-4, greatest thichness -7 cms. 

In the previous excavations eight beads were discovered, of 
which all save BM3 were published in the report ; but for the 
sake of completeness it has been though advisable to redraw them, 
adding sections. Apparently all were found in Back Chamber I. 
Save for BM3 and BM5 they are of grey -green or grey- black 
chloritic sericite schist with siliceous lenticles. This material occurs 
in a thin band east of Mary Grey Hill, some two miles aw^ay, as 
Mr. Hartley of Queen’s University informs me. The beads themselves 
are rolled pebbles from the river-bed, probably selected because 
this stone is extremely soft. 

BMI is a long ovoid bead 4 • 5 by 2 • 9 by 2 • I cms., slightly polished. 
The sections are irregular, and hard lenticles project from the 
surface. At both ends is a slight groove and collar, which is partly 
broken away at one end. The bead was bored down the long axis, 
apparently with a small tool and sand. The perforations from the 
two ends do not meet properly. Their diameter at the ends is 
1*2 and 1 cm., in the middle about *8 cms. 

BM2 is a long ovoid bead 6-6 by 3-0 by 2-0 cms. The sections 
are very nearly symmetrical. At one end are remains of a collar, 
but both ends are badly worn, clearly owing to the bead being 
suspended by a string from a point ; if it had formed part of a 
necklace, the string would not have eaten into the stone in the 
same way. The boring along the long axis is regular and cylindrical,, 
•6 cms. in diameter. 


BM3 is a disc of grey shale, 1*8 cms. in diameter and *2 cms. 
thick, shaped by rubbing though not quite circular ; the surfaces 
are polished and nearly flat. The boring is slightly eccentric, -5 
cms. across. It is just biconical, but this may be due to wear, and 
it Was probably conical. 

BM4 is a thick disc -shaped bead with rounded edges, 1 • 5-1 • 7 
•cms. thick, with total diameter 3 *3-3 -6 cms. of faces 2 *0-2 -3 cms. 
It is fairly polished. The shape is a little irregular, the faces not 
parallel. The boring is eccentric and not at right angles to the faces, 
biconical, 1*2 cms. in diameter at the lip and -7 in the centre. 

BM5 is an almost circular disc with rounded edges, 1*2-1 *3 cms. 
thick, 3 *2-3 *5 cms. total diameter and 2 *5-2 *7 cms. diameter 
of face. Only one face is flattened. The boring is biconical, and as 
near as possible to the centre. It is highly polished, but the surface 
has in places broken away or badly cracked. It is made of black 
bituminous shale of Kimmeridge type, of specific gravity about 
1*5; such shales occur in situ in the lower carboniferous strata 
twenty miles south and east of Ballyrenan. 

BM6 is an almost circular disc, *9-1*3 cms. thick, of overall 
diameter 3 *1-3 *3, diameter of face 2 *6-2 *9. The faces are not 
parallel. They are slightly polished, and on them are fine striations, 
running in different directions on each, so they cannot be due to 
the grain of the stone, though they may be caused by polishing. 
The boring is at right angles to one face and biconical, *7-1*2 cms. 
in diameter. 

BM7 is almost circular with rounded edges, highly polished, 
*7- *8 cms. thick, with overall diameter 2 *5-2 *6, of face 2*2 cms. 
It is bored eccentrically and cylindrically ; the boring is shewn on 
the section as conical because it is not at right angles to the faces. 
The boring is *5 cms. across, the depressions at the mouths 1*0 

BM8 is almost circular, with rounded edges and no faces. It 
is slightly polished, and 2*5 cms. across, *8-1*0 thick. The boring 
is eccentric and biconical, *9-1*3 cms. in diameter. 

Though the beads are unusual, and the exact circumstances of 
their deposition are unfortunately unknown, the finds otherwise 
correspond to those in later homed cairns. It is only remarkable 
that neolithic pottery should appear in a monument of “ dolmen 
type, which usually yield food- vessels. Fine megaliths certainly 
existed in Tyrone ; but archaic pottery traditions may have 
lingered there, at least for sepulchral purposes. 

[To face page 100. 




O.D. 478 FEET. 








friable brown soil. 











( 101 ) 


By Dermot F. Gleeson, M.A., M.E.I.A., Member. 

T here are in Ireland some historic and picturesque areas, 
which, whether by reason of their remoteness from the 
beaten track, or because the story of their associations 
with the past is unknown, find little mention in the tourist 
guide books and pass almost unnoticed even in the more 
important works of reference. Such a country is that in which 
are situate the silvermines adjoining the modern village of that 
name about three miles south west of Nenagh, in the Barony of 
Upper Ormond and ancient parish of Kilmore. To the geologist 
the area offers a wide field of interest: besides the silver ore, 
there are mines of sulphur, of lead, of zinc, and calamine and 
even possibly some quicksilver deposits. These are situate 
variously along a narrow line of magnesium limestone with 
patches of lower limestone shale, interposing in an east- 
west direction between a long silurian hill range with patches of 
old red sandstone, and the plain of the two Ormond baronies, 
which almost entirely consists of lower limestone.^ On the other 
side of the hill above the mines, now known as Knockanroe but 
anciently called by the variant Knockaunderrig,^ is the wild, 
beautiful and unknown valley of Gleann Colloo from the south 
side of which rises the steep slope of Slieve Ciamaltha to the 
Eagles Nest. From this height, on a clear day, may be seen the 
entire Shannon valley from Foynes to Clonmacnoise. Through 
the valley wind the head waters of the Mulkear River, running 
down towards Annacotty past the village of Newport, and 
holding lively trout and, in the summer floods, an occasional 
salmon. Beside the river on the south bank and almost under 
Ciamaltha is the site of a gold mine, now unworked for many 
years. ^ 

1 The area will be found in Sheet No. 134 of the one inch issue of the 
Geological Survey (1861). A full note on the geology of the area by George 
V. Du Noyer will be found in our Journal for 1865 pp. 273-4. 

2 Curiously also an alternative name in the Records for Nenagh. 

3 A good deal of folk lore and legend centres around the place names of 
Ciamaltha and the Slieve Phelim hiUs. O’Donovan gives the proper form 
of the latter as Slieve Eibhlin. See our Journal Vol. VII. p. 97, also Vol. I, 
pt. 3, p. 358, and Onomasticon p. 608, also in App. to A.F.M. (O’D.), p. 849.. 
Ciamaltha is 2,278 feet high. 


In this paper we will concern ourselves with the history of 
the mines already described, at the foot of the north slope of 
Knockaunderrig, the workings of which, with the general terrain, 
are clearly visible to the traveller to the south east of the railway 
line near Shallee station between Nenagh and Birdhill.^ 
Several writers of the early I7th century, who will be quoted 
hereafter, in writing of these mines incorrectly assumed that 
they had then been just discovered. In fact, however, the mines 
were known and worked as early as the end of the 13th century, 
and indeed, further field work, or research amongst the Irish 
Texts, may show that they were known even before the Norman 

As has been already described in our Journal, Theobald Walter, 
the first Butler, and his knights, came to the Ormond country 
.at the end of the 12th century and established various settle- 
ments there which endured around the strong point of Nenagh 
■Castle, until the resurgence of the “ old Irish ” in the latter 
half of the 14tli century.® In this early settlement it appears 
that a lodgment was made in the Parish of Kilmore, in which 
the mines are situate, by one John Assick. At all events an 
Inquisition post-mortem taken at Cashel on April 20th, 1284, of 
the possessions of William de Marisco, after reciting his owner- 
ship of the Manor of Weyperous “ in the cantred of Ermonia,” 
goes on to say “ He also had in the same County and cantred 
of Aryth, of John Assick, four knights fees in demesne for the 
service of one and a half knights, when Royal Service is sum- 
moned, and two suits at Johns Court at Kilmore, worth 43s. 4d. 
per annum. This paper is interesting, not only as establishing 
a Norman occupation of the Parish of Kilmore in the 13th 
century, but also as helping Colgan’s identification of this 
Kilmore with the Kilmore Aradh Thire of the Life of St. Senan.® 
Sir John Assik appears to have been one of the personal 
associates of the Butler of the period, for his name is found 

^ There are or were eight principal workings — Shallee Western, Lackagh. 
Shallee Eastern stopes, Gortenadine, Kinckeen, Ballynoe, Knockanroe, and 
the sulphur mine near the village of Silvermines. 

5 Du Noyer in his note to Dineleys Tour (v. note 1 ante) suggests that 
the zinc deposits here were worked back to the first century of the Christian 

® See “ The Castle and Manor of Nenagh ” in our Journal, December 1936. 
’ Cal. Doc. Ireland (Sweetman) 11, p. 510. 

® Kilmore Parish and Church is now in Upper Ormond but both Colgan 
and O’Donovan have suggested that it was once in Aradh — v. Acta SS. p. 
173 and A.F.M., V. p. 1299. The jurors at Trim Assizes in A.D. 1289 included 
“Gilbert de Nenagh and Roger Bailiff of Kilmore” per Cal. D.I. Ill, p. 
234. The latter was possibly an Irishman. Roger or Rory being a common 
Christian name in the O’Glissane family, erenachs of Kilmore. 



several times as a witness to liis Deeds. ^ Five years after the 
date of this inquisition occurs the first mention 1 have been able 
to find of the working of the mines. This is a Treasurer’s receipt 
by Sir Robert Maunsel to Sir Nicholas de Clere, Treasurer in 
Ireland, and Peter de Ballymore, the King’s Chamberlain “ for 
£10 of silver of the King’s treasure to be paid to William de 
Cerne to defray expenses regarding the King’s Mine in the 
County of Tipperary. While Kilmore or Knockaunderrig are 
not specifically mentioned in this and other receipts to be quoted, 
a document to be given from Prynne will identify the mine more 
exactly, apart from the fact that there seems to be no other 
mine in Tipperary to which the receipts could apply. There are 
several other entries of receipts of the like nature, which provide 
the interesting information that the mines were first opened and 
worked by members of a colony of Florentine and Genoese 
merchants to whom many references will be found in the State 
Papers of the period. There is a little later a similar receipt 
for £4 7s. 7|d. “ paid to John de Genewe (alias per No. 633. 

‘ John de Genoa ’ ) and on May 4, 1290, yet another receipt 
in the same terms “ for 60s. of silver for works of a mine in 
Co. Tipperary.”^ The original £10 of the IGng’s treasure 
appears to have been paid over to one Scot de Vyks for on June 
24, 1289, he is mentioned in a receipt from the Sheriff of 
Tipperary “for £10 for opening a mine in that County. It 
is not too clear whether the money was paid to Scot de Vyks or 
was paid by him to the Sheriff as a royalty, but the former 
would appear more likely as there is also a receipt “ from Scot 
de Vyks, a merchant of Florence, to the Treasurer of Ireland for 
four marks paid to John of Genoa to defray expenses regarding 
the mine of Ireland. On the Treasurer’s Accounts on the 
Chancellor’s Roll of 24-27 Edwd. I is a further entry of 30s. 
“ part payment of the wages of Wm. de Borham, the borer, 
going to Ireland with four miners bearing the King’s letter to 
open and work mines ” and yet another of a payment of 5 marks 
to R. de Saham, Baron of the Exchequer, “ going to Waterford 
and Munster with the above borer and miners to place them in 
mining works and raise their expenses.”^® The only return I can 
trace from this outlay is a sum of 61s. 4d. on the Treasurer’s 

® Cal. Or. Deeds (Curtis) 1. passim. 

Cal. Doc. Ireland (Sweetman) 111. p. 230. The date is May 3, 1289. 
Cal. Doc. Ire. III. No. 498. 

12 Ihid. III., p. 322. 12 Ibid. III., p. 232. 

^^Ihid. III., p. 230. 

Ibid. IV., p. 164. The payments were made in 23-24 Edwd. I. (A.D. 


Return of 26 Edwd. I. (1298) “ received of issues in mining in 
Ireland. There is of course nothing to connect these latter 
entries with the Tipperary mine and it would appear that others 
were opened or projected then or later. 

These earlier entries regarding the “ Royal Mines ” in County 
Tipperary are amplified and more closely related to the Kilmore 
silver mines by an interesting entry in Prynne entitled “ De 
jMinerariis Regis in Hibernia sublevandis. ” This is a petition 
from “ le Minours en Irland ” to the Treasurer and Barons of 
the King’s Exchequer and I give Mr. Charles MacNeill’s trans- 
lation from the Erench as in Analecta Hibernica No. 6, pp. 
o28-9.^^ “ A miner having killed a man of peace, fled with others 

his companions in fear of the country. Sir Renaud de Ferrers 
prayed their gardien to send persons in search which they did 
above and below ground and in the miners houses without 
success. Then came William, Sir Renaud’s son, Andreu Misde, 
Rbt. Coffyn, Guy le Brit, Johan le Forester, Simon de la Hole 
and many others of Sir Renaud’s men armed, to the mine at 
night and broke us (nous) and entered to spy all, without any 
officer and threw them all into affright. Then they went to the 
fosses and cast leyn ( ? timber) and great stones and broke the 
timber (merim) that supported the mine ‘ et ont fause le 
overaigne en plusieurs lieux la ou ele iestent mieux reparillee.’ 
The miners dare not enter les overaignes nor advantage the King 
or themselves. They can go nowhere without being beaten and 
several have gone away not daring to live in the country. Sir 
William Glise the parish chaplain of Byr came to a tavern above 
(sus) the mine, among miners and country folk and raised a 
quarrel between him and the miners and was beaten and got 
his head broken. The gardien, when he heard of it would have 
punished the miners and made them have made good amends 
had they been at fault ; but those that were there said they did it 
se defendendo. The chaplain would by no means agree; he and 
the patron Sir Wauter de Ferrers, went in revengeful way and 
had them all excommunicated ; so that they stayed long without 
doing anything for they did not go underground in that state 
and the best miners went off a grand arerisement des overaignes. 
Written at the mine SS. Simon and Jude. 

Gilbert de Knouill and Thomas de la Hyde were assigned to 
hear and determine.” 

This document is dated in 1303 some seventeen years after 
the first expenditure on the opening of the mine. It throws 

i6/6zW. IV., p. 266. 

Ex P^Tine III., 1019 in Harris Collectanea I., f. 371. 



some interesting light on the conditions obtaining there. 
Apparently the miners were a body of foreigners with their own 
gardien ” and as such it is not surprising that they should 
come into conflict with “ the men of the country.” 

I have not been able to find anything about either Sir Renaud 
de Eerrers, or Sir Wauter de Ferrers, in any of the; 
more obvious sources, and indeed there is no mention of the 
mines at all in either the Ormond Deed Calendars or the Red 
Book. Sir William Glise, the chaplain of “ Byr ” provides, 
however, a direct connection with the Kilmore mines. His 
family of Glise, Glissane, or O’Glissane were Erenachs of the 
Church lands of the parish of Kilmore for centuries. The name 
is found elsewhere in Ireland only in the Barony of Imokilly in 
Cork. This area is like Kilmore Parish and Ormond generally 
one of the ancient lands of the Muscraige or Erann, and the 
name would appear to be of Muscraige rather than of Dalgais 
origin, as are some other family and place names which still re- 
main in Ormond. Like the 0 ’Hogans of Ardcrony this family 
provided many priests to the church down the years, and 
especially in this Diocese of Killaloe in which both Kilmore and 
“ Byr ” (which I take to be Birr) are situate. Sir William, who 
had his head broken, would therefore be of the family who 
held the greater portion of the Parish of Kilmore and the area 
around the mine itself right up to the Cromwellian plantation,^® 
and although “ Byr ” is over twenty miles away, there i& 
nothing surprising in finding him in his native parish. 

What the result of the inquiry ordered into this incident of 
1303 may have been, does not appear, but after it I have been 
unable to find any reference to the works until the early days of 
the 16th century. It may be that the miners left for foreign 
parts, after 1303, whether because of the opposition or because 
of financial difficulties, for we learn that in 1304 “ the Merchants 
of Florence were harrassed by debts. In any event the 14th 
century was a century of strife in Ormond which ended in the 
uprooting of the greater part of the Norman settlement there,, 
including whatever lands the Normans had been able to colonise 
or occupy in the Kilmore area. The next reference I find to these 
mines is in the Red Book of the Earl of Kildare under date 
1503, as follows “ Item, There ys in the Erl of Desmonds 
country a mine of goold and part of the ore thereof was brought 
to Waterford and sayne (? seen or assayed) by the Recorder 
there and Others. Item. There be besides Waterford, Knock- 

See Civil Survey of Tipperary (Simington) 2. pp. 241-5. 
Cal. Doc. Ire. TV., p. 87. 


topher, and in Ormond a myndis of silver the which have been 
])roved good by Sir Gilbert Depiiam that had great quantities of 
the same ores and also by John Fagan of Waterford.”^*’ From 
this it would appear that the Ormond silver mine was well 
known at all times back to the middle of the 13th century and 
it is difficult to understand the references hereafter to be given, 
in wdiich it is described as “ lately discovered ” before the 
rebellion of 1641 : it may be that the new discovery was of new 
lodes as there are several openings in the mines a considerable 
distance apart. The only two additional papers I have been 
able to find concerning the mines in the 16th century are a letter 
•of a Captain ap Howell (actually ‘ a Poyle ’) written from 
Nenagh on June 28th, 1549,^^ and a Queen’s Letter in 1553 
directing “ the mines to cease. ”22 The first of these is interest- 
ing because the family of Powell were connected with the 
mineworking in the 17th century and this Captain may have 
been a forbear : as for the second, it seems to refer to Silver 
mines at Wexford, and Ormond is not specifically mentioned. It 
is extremely doubtful, having regard to the local conditions, if any 
mining could have been done at Knockaunderrig by Englishmen 
■or foreigners between 1380 or thereabouts and 1550. 

In the 17th century the existence of and the working of the 
mines is well documented. Moreover they were situate on the 
main route to Limerick and the west which did not proceed 
via Nenagh until the abolition of the old mail coach road from 
Toomeveara to Limerick via Dolla, Silvermines and Shallee and 
the cutting of the new road via Nenagh and Carrigatoher in 
the 19th century. In the 17th century maps all roads lead 
through the mines which was then a greater centre of population 
than Nenagh. They seem to have been “ discovered ” anew 
in the year 1612. In Scott’s “ Joint Stock Companies to 1720 ” 
in the London Guildhall Library, the author says that the mines 
Royal in the Pale in Ireland had been assigned to the Society 
of the Mineral and Battery Works in the reign of Elizabeth. 
The work proceeds “ As time went on this right was allowed to 
lapse and when, in 1612, a discovery of silver was made in Kil- 
more, Co. Tipperary, which yielded 3 lbs. of silver to the ton, 
the privilege of mining was secured by a small company or syndi- 
cate in which Sir George Hamilton, Sir Basil Brook and Sii’ 
William Russell were interested. In the reign of Charles I, Sir 

2 ® Duke of Leinster’s Mss. in App. 9th Rep. Hist. Mss. Commission, p. 

21 Cal. S.P.I. 1509-73, p. 105. 

^^Ihid., p. 132. 

22 See especially Petty’s general Map. 



G. Hamilton procured the concession for mine royal and he had 
expended several thousand pounds. This Sir George was 

brother-in-law of the first Duke of Ormond and resided at 
Nenagh Castle of which he was governor both before and after 
the Cromwellian regime and during the siege by Ireton. Another 
interested in the mine was Sir Thomas Meredith who, in 1641, 
resided at Ballycahill Castle adjoining. This “ discovery ” in 
1612 seems to have attracted some notice in the country; Father 
Francis Matthews, Guardian of St. Antony’s, Louvain, mentioned 
it in a letter to Luke Wadding.^® Later on in the century both 
the writer on the Irish mines in Boates “ Natural History by 
Several Hands,” and Thomas Dynely in his Journal, placed the 
discovery as “a short time before the rebellion” (of 1641). 
While it is clear from the papers we have already mentioned that 
the mine was known long before 1612, apparently it had been 
allowed to fall into disuse for a considerable period before that 
date, when it was reopened and a good deal of money expended 
on it by Sir George Hamilton and his friends. It was apparently 
leased to him by the King as a Royal mine. The actual owner of 
the soil we know both from Boate and from the Civil Survey 
and the 1641 Depositions, to have been John MacDermot 
O’Kennedy, of Dunaille, one of the last great 0 ’Kennedy’s of 
Ormond, a Colonel in the Confederate Army of 1641.^^ From 
Boate^® we also learn that each of Sir George’s miners had 
“ arable and pasture land to the value of £20 per annum ster- 
ling,” and that John O’Kennedy was their landlord. If Sir 
George’s petition to the King on the Restoration for a re-grant 
of the mines is to be believed, very extensive and profitable 
operations were carried on at the mine between 1612 and 1641. 
“ Petitioner had a Pattent from King Charles I for farming the 
Royal Mines of Dunaille or Knockanederry. By labour and ex- 
pense of £30,000 more than was ever re-imbursed, the mines 

Op. Cit. VoL I. For this and other references to the London Collections 
in this paper, I am much indebted to Mr. Michael Delaney, a native of the 
adjoining parish of Dolla, now resident in London. 

See Deposition of W. Timmes infra. 

2® Franciscan Mss. Merchant’s Quay in Hist. Mss. Commission Reps. 
Vol. 78 (1906), pp. 34-5. 

27 “ Vir integerrimae sinceritatis ” — per Threnodia Hib. Cathol. of Father 
F. M. Morrison, O.F.M. (Pub. 1659). He was executed with his son James 
O’Kennedy (“ juvenis magnae spei ”) at Nenagh in 1651 by the Cromwellians, 
apparently for alleged complicity in the murders of 1642 at the mines (see 
infra). He had been exempted from life and estate by Cromwellian 
Ordinance of that year in Egerton Mss. B.M. No. 1048, p. 130. 

28 Boates “ Natural History by Several Hands ” (DubUn, 1740) Cap. 
XVIII., pp. 78-9. Although the book was not printed until 1740 this paper 
in it on the mines was written during or soon after “ this present rebellion ” 
of 1641. 


were brought to such a pitch of perfection that the profits to the 
King in 1640 were £800 plus the duties on the export of lead and 
re-import of it in other commodities, besides the maintaining 
of natives, 500 Englishmen, and divers strangers brought from 
all nations at great cost to improve it.”^® When the mine was 
first found in 1612 it was thought to be only a lead mine and 
accordingly notice was given to Donogh, Earl of Thomond, Lord 
President of Munster, who, we are told, used some of the lead 
for roofing Bunratty Castle.^® Afterwards silver was found in the 
lead. This writer in Boate goes on to give an interesting account 
of the actual working of the mine in the period before the rebel- 
lion : — “The veins of the mine commonly lay within three or 
four spits of the surface. They digged deeper as the veins 
went fathoms deep and then castle deep — the pits were not steep 
but sloping so that it was possible to go in with barrows walking. 
The water seldom offended them as they were able to drain it 
into the river nearby by conduits. The mine gave two different 
sorts of oar of which the one most in quantity was of reddish 
colour, hard and glittering and the other like a marl something 
blewish, and more soft than the red, and this was counted the 
best, producing most silver, whereas the other or glistering sort 
was very barren and went most away in litteridge or dross. The 
oar yielded one with another three pounds weight of silver out of 
each ton, but a great quantity of lead, so as that was counted the 
best profit to the farmer. Besides the lead and silver, the mine 
produced also some quicksilver but not any alom, vitriol, or 
antimony that I could hear of. The silver was very fine and sold 
in Dublin for 5s. 2d. the ounce sterling. The lead sold at the 
place for £11 sterling the ton or £12 at the City of Limerick. The 
King had the sixth part of the silver for his share and the tenth 
part of the lead, the rest remaining with the farmers whose 
profit was £2,000 sterling yearly. All the mills, refining houses, 
melting houses, and other workhouses, stood within a quarter of 
a mile from the place where the mine is digged, every one of 
them conveniently built by the farmers or their substitutes.’” 
The writer mentions Sir William Russell, Sir Basil Brooks, and 

29 C.S.P.I. 1660-2, p. 153. All the figures appear, after the fashion of 
the time, to be greatly exaggerated. There can hardly have been anything 
like “ 500 Englishmen ” at the mines at any time. The accounts “ of the 
mines of silver and lead at Downeally, Co. Tipperary, for 1633-7 ” referred 
to in App. to 33rd. Rep. Dep. Keeper Ire., p. 58, have unfortunately perished 
in 1922. 

30 Per Boate op. cit. The use of the lead in Bunratty is described by 
Westropp and MacKamara in a paper on the Castle in Jour. Kth. Mimster 
Arch. Soc. Vol. 3, Xo. 4 (1915), though the authors were unaware of its 



Sir George Hamilton as having the mine in farm successively from 
the King.^^ He also tells us that “ the mine was free from deadly 
vapours and there were no accidents there, because the work 
was done in wide open pits.” 


At the outbreak of the rebellion of 1641 there occurred at the 
mine, the murder of some of the miners and their wives. This 
has been magnified to some extent in the general histories and 
is commonly given as one of the chief excesses of the Con- 
federates in Munster. The alleged facts are given in many sources 
all of which are in substantial disagreement with each other. 
The writer in Boate who has been previously quoted says, “In 
the beginning of this present rebellion all the mine was destroyed 
by the Irish under the conduct of Hugh O’Kennedy, brother of 
John MacDermot O’Kennedy on whose lands the mine was 
situate — all the works were destroyed and the workers killed, 
except a few who escaped.” The workers, he says, were 
“ English and Dutch because the Irish, having no skill at all 
in any of these things, were never employed.” Sir George Hamil- 
ton, in his petition on the Restoration says, “ All the works 
above and below ground were destroyed in 1641, and a stock of 
lead, coal, timber, tools, etc., to the value of about £10,000 was 
taken from Petitioner besides the loss of the lives of a great 
many workmen. The main information however is to be found 
in the Depositions in the Trinity College MSS. F. 2. 14. The 
Depositions dealing with this matter are very characteristic of 
the general type of Deposition of which Michael Carey, of Phila- 
delphia, who examined them closely in 1823, has written that 
historians of the standing of Warner, Hume, and Leland, have 
drawn upon them in a manner which “ must give cause for 
eternal astonishment. ’ 

The statements in these Depositions relate to the alleged 
murder of 32 Protestants, “ men, women and children,” at the 
mine works on a certain Sunday “ about Candlemas, 1641.” It 
is obvious that by modern computation the date meant is 1642, 
since the rebellion did not occur until October, 1641. The 2nd 
February, 1642, fell on a Sunday and it is apparently on that 
date the murders took place. The main allegations are contained 

Scott (Note 24 supra) seems to think they held it jointly. 

32C.S.P. 1660-2, p. 153. 

See his estimate of them in 85th Rep. Hist. Mss. Commission (1881), 
p. 575. 


in the Depositions of Anne Sherring and Walter Timmes. Anne 
Sherring describes herself as aged 25 years, and the “ late 
wife ” of John Sherring of the silverworks, in her affidavit sworn 
the 30th September, 1643, before Henry Jones^^ and H. Barter. 
She says “ about Candlemas was two }^ears ” her husband was 
going from his farm which he held from John Kennedy, Esq., 
near the Silverworks, when he was attacked b}’ Hugh Kennedy, 
Johns brother, and several rebels, who also set upon John Burke 
Mcljoughlin ” and eighteen more English Protestants,” and on 
‘‘ about ” ten women and four children and ” most barbarously 
massacred and murdered her husband and all the other Protes- 
tant men, women and children.” She adds that at the time of 
the massacre “ a most loud and fearful noise and storm of 
thunder, lightning, wind, hailstone, rain and tempest, began soon 
after the massacre started, which was an hour before dark on 
a Sunday evening, the former part of the day being very fair.” 
She says that some of the rebels confessed that this storm was 
” a sign of Gods anger,” but that ” they persisted in their 
bloody acts until many of the Protestants were all cut to pieces.” 
The murders, according to her account took place in the actual 
mine works and, being done, the bodies were taken out “ by a 
wither round their necks ” and thrown into a hole “ formerly 
made,” so that “none escaped.” In the next sentence she, 
however, describes the escape of two of them, who crawled up 
when the rebels were gone and escaped with their lives. She 
then adds that the Judgement of God fell upon Hugh Kennedy so 
that “ a most desperate madness and distraction fell upon him ” 
and about a week after “ he drowned himself in the next river 
to the silverworks.” Not content, however, with what she knows 
at first hand, she proceeds to describe on oath “ what she is too 
well assured of,” and in a fine general omnibus indictment she 
adds that “ all the Popish gentry in the county hereabouts, 
especially all those of the septs and names of the O’Briens, 
Coghlans and the O’Kennedys, were all acting in the present 
rebellion against His Mejesty and otherwise acted, assisted, in- 
cited or consented to all the murders, robberies, cruelties and 
rebellious acts aforesaid.” Timmes says that “ at the outbreak 
of the rebellion he joined with his Irish neighbours who were 
gentry to stand loyal together.” Canon Dwyer, with perhaps 
unconscious irony, describes the remainder of his story as “a 

The well known Bishop of Clogher who later became Scoutmaster 
General under the Commonwealth. Son of Bishop Lewis Jones of Killaloe. 
This Deposition and that of Timmes and several others are set out at large 
in Canon Dwyer’s “ Diocese of Killaloe,” pp. 242-48, but without any attempt 
to appraise their accuracy or value. 



most grapliic statement of his hair breadth escapes and wondrous 
deliverances.”^® The w;hole is unconvincing in the highest degree 
although apparently founded on a stratum of fact. He, in the 
main, confirms Anne Sherring’s story but limits the attackers 
to ” Hugh Kennedy, brother of John, John Glissane, R. 
O’Kennedy, T. Brane (servant), Donal Glissane called the 
” Great Donal,” John and two or three more of the 0 ’Kennedies 
and Hugh O’Coghie, ” a most cunning and bloody villian.” He 
tells us that when the rebellion broke out all the Englishmen 
went from the mine to Sir Thomas Meredith’s Castle at Bally- 
cahill for protection but were induced to return by John 
O’Kennedy, apparently the leading Irish gentleman in the 
neighbourhood, on his promise “ that none should hurt or pillage 
them or anything.” He adds some details to Anne Sherring’s 
narrative which would assuredly have found themselves into 
her Deposition if they were true.^® He contradicts her on the 
disposal of the bodies which he says were left where they lay 
until they were buried ” in a watery ditch. He agrees with 
her about the escape of the two men Collopy and Ladely, the 
latter escaping, he says ” through the good succour and help 
of Sir Alexander (sic) Hamilton and the Hon. Georgina Hamil- 
ton.” The most credible account is given by John Powell “ silver 
refiner,” who says that when the rebellion broke out “ about 
All-hallowtide ” he was advised by John O’Kennedy that it 
would be better for the Englishmen to bring their goods to a 
place of strength. Accordingly they went to Ballycahill Castle 
where many of them entrusted their goods to Thomas Carter, 
Meredith’s Steward, an Englishman, who, however, robbed them 
and “ joined the rebels and being an Englishman was at length 
murdered by them as I credibly heard. When things became 
reasonably quiet they returned to the mine on John Kennedy’s 
advice. Powell does not mention the number slain but says that 
a child was killed in the mine work. 

It is apparent from reading the Depositions about the murders 
that almost all of them are based on hearsay evidence — none of 
the Deponents describe any personal experience. The Deposi- 

Op. Cit., p. 244. 

These consist of allegations of outrages on the corpses by the wives 
of Colonel O’Kennedy and of the “ Great Donnell ” Glissane. Canon 
Dwyer accepts them without query, but they are not mentioned in any other 
Deposition and seem to be a figment of Timmes imagination. 

When O’Donovan came to this parish in 1840 he found, near a well 
at Ballyanrahan beside Kilmore old Church, a place called “ Clais na nGall ” 
which he gives as the “ pit or trench of the foreigners ” or Englishmen. 
(Name Books Vol. 123, p. 27 et seq.). He mentions no tradition about it. 

38 Per the Deposition of Lydia Carter. 


tions of Anne Sherring and Timmes are couched in quite un- 
reliable language and some of the averments were evidently 
suggested by those who took them down, with a view to making- 
use of them later to secure the forfeiture of the local landowners’ 
property. The truth seems to be that John O’Kennedy of 
Dunaille did his best to protect his English tenants but that 
his brother Hugh, who was clearly a lunatic, assembled some 
men without his knowledge and either went to pillage the mine 
and became involved in a conflict with the miners, or else 
deliberately set out to kill some of them. The number slain is 
exaggerated by Anne Sherring. Carte puts it at fourteen in 
contra-distinction to Anne Sherring ’s thirty-eight^^ and says that 
the murderers were overtaken by the Judgement of God, and that 
except for one other incident which was punished by the Irish, 
it was the only outrage committed on the English in Munster.^*’ 
Indeed in this case also, Timmes goes on to describe in his 
Deposition how, after the murders, by orders of the Confederates, 
all those involved were arrested by John O’Kennedy, save Hugh, 
who had drowned himself and O’Coghie. The latter, Timmes 
•characteristically says, was not apprehended because he would 
implicate 0 ’Kennedy’s wife in the affair or else “ to preserve him 
for some further mischief.” At all events he fled, to stay in 
some religious house “ amongst a wiked company of priests and 
friars.” Timmes says that those arrested were suffered to escape 
after being “ strictly questioned there is now no means of 
checking this. 

Apparently Sir George Hamilton came back to the mines 
between 1641 and 1650, because in his petition to Charles II 
already quoted he says that about 1647 having a prolongation 
of his grant from His Majesty at St. Germains “ he then re- 
turned with the Marquis of Ormond and spent two thousand 
pounds on works of restoration but was again driven away ” — 
this time presumably by the Cromwellians. During the Crom- 
wellian regime the mines were worked by John Powell, the 
silver refiner, under a Contract with the Cromwellian Commis- 
sioners. On his Petition the mines were freed from excise de- 
mands and it was ordered that the underwoods were to be pre- 
served for the use of the mine. The matter in dispute between the 
Petitioner and one Thomas Thompkins was referred to the next 
going Judge of Assize. This Powell made a report on the mines 

The number of slain is given at 24 in Brit. Mus. Sloane 1008, p. 132, 
in a contemporary paper “ A Collection of Murders in Ireland.” 

Cartes “ Ormond ” I., p. 270. 

B. Mus. Egerton 1762 (20th March, 1654). 



to Dr. Molyneaux, who read a paper on iniiiing before the Dublin 
Philosophical Society on August 14th, 1707.^^ He says that he 
worked as a silver refiner for Sir Basil Brooks and others at the 
Silvermines at ‘ Knockaunderege ’ and that this work was profit- 
able for 12 years before the rebellion began “ clearing a value of 
£2,000 per month. He adds that he also saw another lead 
mine, not holding so much silver, but making one ton of lead 
to tons of ore, at Duharra, in the parish of Castletown “ where 
one Captain Nunt did live in ye Earl of Corks land close to the 
Shannon. ” 

Colonel Henry Pritty, one of the leading officers in Ireton’s 
army, eventually drew all the country around and including the 
silvermines for his arrears of pay. He had been Governor of 
Carlow previously.^* Apparently there was some trouble about 
his taking over possession of the mines, or at least of portion of 
the land there, as Colonel Daniel Abbott, the military governor 
■of Nenagh Castle, wrote to Lord Henry Cromwell on the 1st 
March, 1658, that Col. Pritty intended a trial at Clonmel the 
next Assizes, for “ 200 acres belonging to the Silver Mines ” and 
also mentions difficulties which would arise if the mine workers 
were put out of their houses.*^ I have been unable to ascertain 
the end of the matter, but Colonel Pritty was confirmed in his 
possession of these properties under the Acts of Settlement and 
Explanation.*® Actually he does not appear to have taken up 
residence for some years after as he was not there in 1665-7 when 
the principal householders in the Parish were John Powell (the 
refiner) , in Gortahoma, Marcus Magrath at Kilboy and Teige 
Bryan at Garrymore, per the Hearth Money Rolls ; nor were 
there any English miners returned as paying Hearth tax in the 
parish in these years, all the names being Bryans, Kennedys. 
and Glissanes, etc. In the returns for 1666-7 Sir George Hamil- 
ton appears as paying tax for a house of four hearths at the 
Silver Mines and Walter Leaks (perhaps his steward) for three, 
so that possibly this is the “ return ” of which he speaks in his 
petition to Charles II. He was also “ rated ” at Nenagh in the 

Register Book of the Philosophical Society of Dublin under this date. 

Compare with “ £2,000 yearly ” per Boate supra in text. 

He was one of five leading Cromwellian Officers to settle eventually in 
North Tipperary. The others were Colonel Daniel Abbott, Colonel Simon 
Ffynch, Colonel Jas. Harrison, and Colonel Thomas Sadleir. Colonel Henry 
Cromwell’s Debentures were also redeemed in Lower Ormond but he sold 
them to the all devouring Earl of Cork in 1659 when the Restoration was 
imminent. For Colonel Pritty see C.S.P. Domestic 1648-9, Prendergast, 
and Dunlop, passim. He saw much service in England. 

B. Mus. Lansdowne 823. Letters to Lord Hen. Cromwell. 

Bks. Survey and Distribution Upper Ormond. The original Pattent 
of Car. II. is in the possession of Lord Dunalley. 



same year for 15 hearths at Nenagh Castle but of this the 
Marchioness of Ormond was the owner. 

Colonel Pritty settled down at Kilboy soon after for we find 
him there when Thomas Dynely came round on his tour of 
Ireland in 1681. Dynely gives us a curious drawing of the 
mineworks and also “ touches ofi ” the mountains.^® Apparently 
there were then two inns there, the old one being called the 
“ Sign of ye Holy Lamb.” Dynely also thought that the mine 
was a recent discovery “ found out by an Englishman a little 

H. The Work of the Mine. T. The melting houses. S. The Water 
that turnes ye Wheele. K. A new work beginning 1681. 0. The 

new Inn at the mines. M. The old Inn ye signe of ye Holy Lamb. 
A. The Road to Limerick. D. The Mount aines. 

(Reproduced from J.R.S.A.I., viii, p. 272). 

before the late rebellion ” when he saw a sheep of “ exceeding 
yellow ” colour killed in the shambles and inquired where it 
had grazed. In his time it produced mainly lead but also “ oker ” 
and amber. Apparently it w^as not worked for silver after Sir 
George Hamilton’s Pattent had expired. Colonel Pritty was- 
working mainly for lead. The family of Colonel Pritty have 
possessed the mines continuously since these days, the present 
owner Lord Dunalley being a direct descendant. Lord Dun- 
alley had in his possession a great number of documents dealing 
with the mines and his property generally, but almost all were 
lost when his residence at Kilboy was destroyed in 1922. He 

See Hearth Money Rolls Tipperary 1665-7 (Laffan) Parish of Kihnore. 

See our Journal for 1865 (Vol. VIII.), pp. 272-3. 



has been good enough to allow me to look through those few 
which were salved and with Lady Dunalley’s assistance I found 
the original Patent of the property under the Restoration Acts, 
a Palatinate Fair grant, mining leases, and a number of other 

In 1703 apparently some “ discoverer ” suggested that as this 
mine was a “ Royal ” mine. Colonel Pritty had no right to work 
it without an express Patent grant of the mine itself. At all 
events amongst the Bills sent to the Lord Lieutenant to be 
prepared for the ensuing Parliament of that year, was one for 
“ opening mines ” and a note with it says “ This Bill, the heads 
wh^..reof are already prepared for the House; by the hardship of 
Mr. Pretty’s case (whose mines in Tipperary were adjudged 
Royal Mines) people here are discouraged from endeavouring to 
open mines. This Bill gives l/20th to the Crown and Pattentee 
so it hoped that there will be no opposition.”^® Apparently there 
was not, for the mines have remained continuously in the same 
hands since. They were let during the 18th and 19th centuries 
to various companies who mined them for lead and other base 
metals only and not for silver. In 1800 a strong Company took 
over the workings but they also failed in a short time, and Lord 
Dunalley tells me that none of the various Companies who took 
Leases were ever very successful/® 

Finally, a note on the Silvermines in general history may be 
added. Standing as it does on one of the old main routes to 
Limerick and the west, a number of the great army commanders 
have camped there at one time or another. In the year 1538 
Lord Leonard Grey rested a night on his “ iter ” between 
Modreeney and Caherconlish.^^ Owen Roe O’Neill journeyed this- 
way to Clare and from the Silvermines detached Sir Phelim 
O’Neill to take Nenagh Castle in 1648.^2 Ireton journeyed by the 
mines to Limerick for its siege^^ and a curious story can be told 
of the alleged helping of his Cannon through the bogs by some 

« C.S.P. Domestic (B.M.) S.P. 63, 361, 21st April, 1703. 

The Minute Book of the Company of 1800 is now in the National Library 
Mss. And see “Tipperary” by G. Bassett (1889). 

Cal. Carew Mss. (1515-1574). The Information of John Darcy against 
Grey — “ on the 26th (June 1538) by the conduct and leading of the said 
O’Carrell (of Modereeney) they passed through the rest of Ormond, robbing 

and spoiling the country They camped that night at Bealathagoyn 

in the further side of Ormond ” (mod. Ballygown, Silvermines). 

Bellings “ Confederation and War ” VII., pp. 104-8, and see Carte, 
2, p. 36. “ He marched to the Silvermines and took the Castle of Nenagh, 


52 Ludlows Memoirs I., p. 346. He does not mention the Mines but 
there is no doubt that this was the route taken. There is even a “ Cromwell’s 
Hoad ” marked on the 1840 Ord. Sheet S.W. of the mines. Lenihan (Hist. 


of the local inhabitants in return for which they are supposed, 
quite erroneously, to have got their lands freed from the planta- 
tions. Finally Ginkle again journeyed this way from Borrisokane 
to Limerick in 1691^^ and Sarsfield slept with his men on the 
side of Ciamaltha the night before Ballyneety.’^^ Up Knockanroe 
and into the valley of Gleann Coloo, also retreated some of the 
leading O’Kennedy landowners from the plantation of 1654 and 
their descendants are to be found there to this day.^® The old 
mine works are still there and have been at least “ prospected” 
within recent years. The fairs are still held although no longer 
on the scale of other days.^'^ The Court Baron and Leet enjoyed 
during the Palatinate of the 2nd Duke of Ormond is gone and 
its records have apparently perished.^® Nowadays the village 
stands on a side road since the making of the mail road from 
Toomyvara through Nenagh to Birdhill,^® but the motorist be- 
tween Eoscrea and Limerick can make a pleasant and interest- 
ing “ bye-pass ” of the old mail road by turning off the modern 
main road either at Toomyvara or Bushfield and keeping along the 
12 great hills of Phelim ye Madona to the south of Nenagh. 

Limerick, p. 171) says Ireton “ marched down by the Silvermines and across 
the road to that part of the Shannon which flows opposite Killaloe.” Actually, 
per Ludlow, the crossing was made about Bridgetown, “ about half way 
between Killaloe and Castleconnell.” 

Storey’s “ Narrative ” 8th Aug., 1691. “ Saturday the 8th, a party 

of horse and dragoons with several pioneers went towards the Silvermines 

(from Nenagh) to make the roads for our heavy carriages ” On 

the 11th “ the army that day marched to a place called Shalley in a wild 
nnd desolate cormtry nigh the Silvermines, where in the former wars about 
17 of Sir George Hambleton’s followers were slain by the Kennedys. The 
12th we made to a place called Tulla, where we halted.” 

The imknown author of “ Battle Fields of Ireland ” (N. York, 1867) 
says Sarsfield returned from BaUyneety by “ passing to the East of Keeper 
mountains and holding his way through Upper and Lower Ormond to 

They still bring their dead many miles to the old O’Kennedy graveyards 
at Ballynaclogh and Kilkeary. 

Patt. Dec. 11, 1718, to Hy. Prittie. Four fairs Apr. 20, May 28, Sept. 
1st., Oct. 10th and two days after each. Lord Dimalley has the original 
Pattent. The fair in it is called “ Ballygown or Silvermines.” 

See App. 5th Rep. Dep. Keeper Ireland for an account of the Palatinate 
Court Records. Not all of them seem to have reached the Record Office 
after 1715. At p. 39 is a “ Return of Writs of Error from the Sherriffs to 
Courts at the Silvermines and Nenagh.” All these records save those 
calendared in 5th and 6th Reps, perished in 1922. 

11-13 Geo. II. cap. XVIII. (A.D. 1737-39). “An Act for the Repair 
of the High Road from the town of Toomeveara in the Co. of Tipperary 
to the town of Silvermines and also to the town of Nenagh : and from the 
towns of Nenagh and Silvermines by Shalley Orchard and through the town 
of Tulla in the said County to the City of Limerick.” (Lib. Mun. VL, p. 

So named in Speede’s “ Map of Mounster ” in 1610. 

Plate XI.] 

(To face page 117. 

The Ballylongford Crucifix. 

( 117 ) 


The “ Ballylongford ” Crucifix : A suggested alternative rendering 
of the inscription. The “ Ballylongford ” crucifix, now in the 
Irish Antiquities Division of the National Museum, Dublin, was 
very fully described and illustrated in volume fifteen (consecutive 
series) of our Journal, pp. 51 1-52 1 . The rendering of the inscription 
given by the writer, George J. Hewson, is, however, owing to 
the obscurity of some of the Gothic lettering, open to question 
at several points. His reading is as follows : “ Cornelius filius 
Johannis Y Conchyr sue naconis capitanius et X Julina filia militis 
me fieri fecerut p manu Wllialmi Corneli m° XXI° 00D03X 
Juno iu,” and he translates it : “ Cornelius, son of John O’Connor, 
chief of his sept and Juli[a]na, daughter of the knight caused 
me to be made by the hand of W[i]lliam [the son of] Cornel[i]us, 

The “ X ” before ‘‘ Julina ” puzzled him a good deal, he says ; 
but he hazards no explanation for it, and says it does not come 
into the reading which he made out. 

An examination of a photograph of the inscription on the crucifix 
itself led the present writer to the conclusion that the symbol 
referred to as “ X ” does not stand by itself, but should be taken 
with what has been read as “ J ” to form a capital ‘‘A.” If this 
conclusion be correct then the name of the “ daughter of the 
knight ” will be, not “ Julina ” or “ Juliana,” but ‘‘ Avlina.” 
Avelina was a not uncommon female name among the Anglo- 
Normans. Similarly the X ” in the date at the end of the 
inscription, if taken with the J ” following it, will give a capital 
‘‘A,” and instead of “ Juno ” we shall get “ Anno ” ; and if the 
next two symbols be read ‘‘ di ” [or “ do ”] as is possible, instead 
of “ iv,” we shall get “ Anno do ” [or di] (Anno Domini), a much 
more plausible rendering than “ Juno IV.” It may be observed 
that the “ J” of “Johannis,” about which there is no doubt, 
is quite different from the presumed “ J ” of “ Julina ” or “ Juno.” 
Furthermore the beginning of the Christian name of the maker 
of the crucifix should, perhaps, be rendered not by “ W ” but 
by “ Ui ” giving, not “ Wllialmus,” but “ Uillialmus.” 

With these suggested alterations the inscription would run as 
follows : “ Cornelius filius Johannis YConchyr [or Yconcu}^*! 
sue naconis capitanius et Avlina filia militis me fieri fecerut p 


manu Uillialmi Corneli m° XXP 03300 Anno di ” [or “ do ”], 
and the translation : “ Cornelius, son of John O’Connor, chief of 
his sept and Avelina, daughter of the Knight, caused me to be 
made by the hand of William [son] of Cornelius A.D. 1479, [or 

Taking “ Avlina ” or “ Avelina ” to be the correct name of the 
female donor, it may be possible to identify her by examining the 
FitzGibbon pedigrees. Such of these as have appeared in our 
Journal, vol X, p. 356, vol. XI, p. 591, vol. XV, p. 640, etc., the 
present writer has examined, but without success. He has not 
at hand any other material from which he might glean the desired 

Towards the end of his paper the writer, referring to the metal 
of which the crucifix was made, stated that it was “ either copper 
or (more likely) some alloy of that metal, possibly laten.” Dcvii 
to about the year 1900 it was described on the label attached to 
it in the Museum as “ latten ” — otherwise brass. About that 
year, on seeing the description on the label, a visitor suggested 
to the Keeper of the Irish Antiquities Division, the late George 
Coffey, that the material of the crucifix was silver. On examination 
by the silver expert, M. S. D. Westropp, then on the staff of the 
Art and Industrial Division, it was found that the visitor’s sugges- 
tion was correct. 

J. J. Buckley. 

Excavations in Co. Tyrone. 

Clady Halliday. — The homed cairn of Clady Halliday near 
Ardstraw was excavated by Mr. Davies in March 1935. 

The stones of the horn and the front chamber are nearly intact, 
and some of the corbels remain in position, though slipped back- 

The other two chambers are less complete, and only a few stones 
of the peristalith remain, but as they had all been dug down into 
the boulder clay it was easy to find their pits, and the plan has 
been fairly well reconstructed. 

The cairn had almost entirely disappeared, but traces were 
found of a clay floor laid down after the structural stones had 
been set up. 

Finds include remains of five pots and a pottery spoon, a polished 
javelin and several other flints, one cremation in the back chamber, 
and the remains of another which seems to have been deposited 
in a secondary cist in the top of the cairn ; both are neolithic. 



Though the structure had partly disappeared, the sealed deposit 
in the chambers appeared undisturbed. 

Dun Ruadh (Co. Tyrone). — The circular cairn of Dun Ruadh 
was excavated by Mr. Davies in September 1935 and May 1936. 

The monument had suffered further extensive damage since it 
was visited by Professor Macalister in 1910, and Mr. Davies in 
1932. The original monument seems to have been a rather irregular 
circle of stones, most of which were found leaning or nearly flat, 
set on a prepared floor of yellow clay. 

The whole was surrounded by a roughly circular ditch, and a 
low bank, on which was set a small palisade. 

Late neolithic pottery was found both below and on the floor. 

Apparently at a much later date the area inside the ditch was 
covered with a pear-shaped cairn with cobbled passage to the 
centre, which itself was probably left open ; the cairn had no kerb 
on the outside, but seems to have been kept up on the inside by 
the uprights of the circle, and by dry walling between them. 

The cairn was too disturbed for its original structure to be 
determined, but it is more probable that the bottom layers were 
first laid down and the cists built in them, and later sealed by 
raising the cairn to a height of some 15 feet, than that the cairn 
was partly dug away after its construction for the insertion of 
the cists. 

There is a record of 13 cists, of wliich ten were located ; four 
are large and carefully built, the other six little more than hollows 
in the cairn and roughly constructed. 

These cists have yielded several food vessels, now in Dublin 
Museum, and the recent excavations produced another complete 
one, and several fragments, also scraps of cremated bone. 

The cairn is therefore probably to be regarded as a multiple 
burial of the Bronze Age, like the example recently published by 
Dr. Hencken at Poulawack, Co. Clare ; there are other probable 
examples in Co. Tyrone. 

A short way outside the principal monument two low mounds 
were examined. 

They proved to consist of a few stones resting on fiercely burnt 
natural clay. They yielded little save charcoal, but there is just 
enough evidence to date them as prehistoric, and it is suspected 
that they were places for cremating the bodies to be laid in the 
main monument, afterwards sealed with stones to prevent 

N. Chambre. 


Observations on Kilgreany Cave, County Waterford, Ireland : By 

Professor E. K. Tratman, M.D.S. — [The following note has been 
forwarded from Singapore, where Professor Tratman had access 
only to the two written reports he mentions. — Ed.] 

In the preliminary press-report^ and in the scientific report of 
the 1934 excavations^ the conclusion drawn from the 1928 excava- 
tions^ that palaeolithic man had been proved to have been present 
in Ireland Avas contradicted ; that is to say, that the skeleton 
discovered in 1928 and known as Kilgreany “ B ” Avas not of that 
period but of one more recent. 

The arguments used against the palaeolithic dating of Kilgreany 
“ B ” are as folloAvs : — 

1. Disturbance of the deposits^ ; 

2. the occurrence of an amber bead of Bronze Age type in 

the upper layers of the loAver stalagmite^ ; 

3. The occurrence of bones of ox in this same stalagmite® ; 

4. the occurrence of oak and ash in the charcoal of a hearth 

said to have been the same as that associated with 
skeleton “ B ; 

d. that the thickness of the stalagmite of tufaceous and micro- 
crystalline types is not necessarily a proof that the deposit 
is of great age® ; 

6. that the skull of Kilgreany “ B ” is of the same physical 
type as Kilgreany ‘‘A,” which latter was not claimed as 
palaeolithic in the 1928 report. 

1. Although (as stated in the 1928 report) all the layers above 
the loAver stalagmite were more or less disturbed,^ it was possible 
to establish by detailed and careful excavation an approximate 
stratigraphy enabling a rough chronology of the occupation of the 
cave to be put forward for the area excavated. The general 
conclusions of this chronology are accepted in the 1934 report. 

Only when the lower stalagmite (1928) is considered does a 
difference of opinion arise. The 1928 report claims that this 
deposit was undisturbed,^® and that if it had been disturbed prior 

^ Irish Times, Nov. 23rd, 1934. 

^ Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, LXV, 1935. (Here- 
after quoted as J .R.S.A.I .) 

® Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society, III, 1928, 
109-163. (Hereafter quoted as P.B.S.S.) 

^ J. R.S.A.I., op. cit., 262, 264, 282, etc. 

® J.R.S.A.I., op. cit., 260 and 282. 

« J.R.S.A.I., op. cit., 261, 284. 

’ J.R.S.A.I., op. cit., 282. 8 J. R.S.A.I., op. cit., 283. 

» P.B.S.S., op. cit., 117. 1“ P.B.S.S., op. cit., 117. 


121 ' 

to the end of the time of its formation the disturbance would have- 
been detectable. 

On page 262 of the 1934 report reference is made to traces of 
an ancient fioor^^ adhering to the walls of the cave as a sort of 
shelf ; and a careful reading of other parts of the 1934 report in 
conjunction wdth the 1928 report indicates clearly that the Bristol 
(1928) trench was luckily cut down to and through an unusually 
wide remnant of this ancient floor — an important conclusion, as 
the remains in this intact portion must therefore be in situ. 

In one or two crevices near the Bristol trench the 1928 strati- 
fication was established and nowhere else. It is also stated in the 
1934 report that ‘‘it was, therefore, impossible to tie the two 
excavations (1928 and 1934) conclusively together — a conclusion 

which, in the writer’s opinion, invalidates much of the evidence 
adduced in the latter as contradicting the conclusions of the 1928 

2, 3. The amber bead was found only in the first 3 cms. of the 
lower stalagmite, i.e., in the topmost layers to which skeleton “ A ” 
was partly cemented by stalagmite, and skeleton “ A ” was 
provisionally dated in 1928 as being Late Neolithic to Early Bronze 
Age. This dating does not appear to have been materially called 
in question except to suggest that the Bronze Age is more probably 
correct, giving an actual date on Fox's chronology of about 
2000 B.C.15 

The bones of ox found in the 1928 excavations were also found 
in the superficial layers of the lower stalagmite and some in areas 
where the tufaceous upper portion of this stalagmite was thin. 
It is not clear whether in the 1934 excavations the remains of ox 
were found throughout the whole thickness of this tufaceous 
stalagmite, where this was found, or only in the upper portions of 
it. Further, as the two excavations could not be “ conclusively 
tied together,” it is not certain that the tufaceous stalagmite of 
the two reports is really the same deposit. 

4. Future research in Southern Ireland must be left to indicate 
whether the presence of oak and ash in early post-Glacial deposits 
is improbable or of any significance. Many Irish naturalists have 
suggested that the Arbutus survived the last glaciation in, or close 

J .R.S.A.I., op.cit., 262. (264 refers to similar shelves but does not 

indicate if the recent fauna was or was not embedded in the stalagmi,te at 
the same level as the ancient.) 

J.E.S.A.I., op. cit., 259. 

J.R.S.A.I., op. cit., 281. 

P.B.S.S., op. cit., 127. 

Archaeology of the Cambridge Region. 

J.R.S.A.I., op. cit., 260. 


to, S.W. Ireland ; so, why not also the oak and ash ? Nevertheless, 
assuming the importance of the presence of charcoal of oak and 
ash, once again the impossibility of tying the excavation of 1934 
with that of 1928 is of vital importance. 

The longitudinal section along the datum line of the 1928 report 
clearly shows the close approximation in one area of hearths 2 and 3, 
and it is suggested that an error of identification may have arisen 
during the 1934 excavations and that the second hearth was 
identified as the third. Further, as the 1928 report infers and the 
1934 report definitely states, the lower stalagmite was still forming 
at the period of the deposition of the second hearth, which might 
even have become embedded in the stalagmite in some areas and the 
chance of confusing it with the earlier third hearth increased 

In the 1928 report the sections of the deposit^® show the third 
hearth as marking the division between the tufaceous and crystalline 
portions of the lower stalagmite. In the 1934 report the supposed 
third hearth is shown as being near the line of division and not 
at it, and the hearth is even shown in part as a double one though 
not described as such.^^ Some reasonable doubt at least must 
exist, then, as to the true horizon of these fragments of oak and ash 
found in the charcoal. 

5. The 1934 report states^® that one of the most outstanding 
results of the excavation is the fact that neither tufaceous nor 
micro-crystalline stalagmite can henceforth be accepted per se as 
conclusive evidence of great age.” The inference is that this is a 
new discovery and invalidates the 1928 conclusions as to the 
dating of Kilgreany “ B,” for this dating w^as based on the thickness 
of a layer of stalagmite. 

The discovery is not new : it has been known, as the result of 
practical experience in the excavation of a series of Enghsh caves, 
and frequently commented upon in written reports and lectures 
by the writer and his colleagues for the past fifteen years. Indeed, 
this was not considered worthy of mention in the 1928 report, and 
the presence of stalagmite was not used as an argument tow'ards 
proving the antiquity of Kilgreany “ B.” 

6. The fact that the skull of Kilgreany “ B ” is, morphologically, 
of the modern type does not necessarily mean that it may not 
represent an individual living under palaeolithic conditions of food- 
gathering, culture and climate, for the man in the upper palaeolithic 

P.B.S.S., op. cit., fig. 5, facing page 130. 

P.B.S.S., op. cit., fig. 5, facing page 130. 

J .R.S.A.I., op. cit., fig. 4, facing page 262. 

2® J.R.S.A.I., op. cit., 283. 



is, in Western Europe at least, morphologically of the modern type 
with certain minor differences which vary from skeleton to skeleton 
in the same way as individuals differ at the present time. The 
only real clue to its date is the fauna associated with the skeleton, 
for, as in other lands, all sites at which there is evidence of the 
presence of palaeolithic man may not yield evidence of his culture. 

In the 1928 excavations down to the lower stalagmite the fauna 
was modern with a slight admixture — due to disturbance — of an 
older palaeolithic fauna. From thence onwards the modern fauna 
was represented solely by a few ox-bones, some of which came 
from the top of the stalagmite ; this portion was undisturbed in 
the area of the 1928 excavations — ^whatever might have been the 
case elsewhere — and only yielded remains of the ancient fauna. 

A stratigraphical comparison with a number of caves in the 
West of England — the nearest available comparative series — show's 
that the 1928 stratification at Kilgreany, confirmed in 193421 can 
be closely paralleled and that there is nothing improbable in finding 
palaeohthic man at a comparatively shallow depth in a deposit. 22 

In the 1928 report the period of Enlgreany ‘‘ B ” was stated to 
be probably Magdalenian, and that has been taken to mean a 
period of great antiquity in actual years and as such to rule out 
any possibility of its being actually of that date according to the 
1934 report. 

According to the writer's views, the Magdalenian period was a 
long one and its end date varies considerably in different areas. 
In England, some distinguished authorities place it at not more 
than 4000 B.C. and possibly even later. In addition, one must 
allow' in Southern Ireland for at least a small time lag, though this 
time lag was possibly disappearing between the close of the 
Magdalenian and the opening phases of the Neolithic periods 

The absence of deposits separating the final pleistocene layers 
from the Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age layers in some 
English caves is a remarkable fact not yet explained, but the 
absence may indicate that only a short period elapsed between 
the end of the one and the beginning of the other, with its recent 
fauna and culture. 

Furthermore, in some English caves these “ final pleistocene ” 
or palaeolithic layers are, when found inside the caves and in 
suitable localities, partly or wholly cemented w'ith tufaceous 
stalagmite and in some cases are formed of actual layers of tufaceous 

J.R.S. A J., op. cit., 259. 

E.g.f at King Arthur’s cave in the Wye valley a hearth containing proto- 
Solutrean flint implements was found at a depth of only 18 inches from the 
recent surface inside the cave. P.B.S.S., III, fig. I, facing page 59. 


stalagmite, while to the top of this stalagmite are sometimes 
cemented remains of the later period — two facts also paralleled at 
ICilgreany, and admittedly showing that stalagmite formation was 
still going on until subsequent to the arrival of the recent fauna. 

There is no doubt about the occurrence of a late palaeolithic fauna 
in the deposits of the Southern Irish caves, and evidence from some 
of them — for example, Ballynamintra — suggests that man was 
contemporary with the fauna, and so in this respect the evidence 
from Kilgreany does not stand entirely alone. 

The only other question is the possible survival on the fringe 
of an area — ^in this case, Ireland and Europe respectively^ — of a 
fauna of one period into a later period giving for a short time a 
mixtTire of the two faunas. And this is a possible explanation of 
the remains of ox with the more ancient types of animal and of 
man. But even if this were so, unless there is cultural evidence 
to the contrary, the man associated with the fauna could still 
properly be called palaeolithic man. 


It is maintained that the lower stalagmite found in the 1928 
excavations was undisturbed. 

It is maintamed that Kilgreany man, skeleton “ B,” was con- 
temporary with the fauna from this layer and that that fauna i& 
essentially late palaeolithic, or rather final pleistocene. 

The actual date of Kilgreany “ B ” need not be very great in 
years, as in the British Isles the Magdalenian and its fauna is 
regarded as continmng to a period as late as 4000 B.C. 

The term Magdalenian of the 1928 report is modified to indicate 
the end stages of that period, stages on the faunal evidence not 
earlier than Magdalenian 6 b of the French classification.^^ 

The top of the lower stalagmite of the 1928 trench is dated at 
about 2000 B.C. and this dating is accepted in the 1934 report. 
The third hearth occurred at the bottom of the tufaceous portion 
of the lower stalagmite, and, if the thickness of this deposit be 
compared with the thickness of the overlying deposits, it will be 
evident that, even allowing a more rapid formation of the stalagmite 
than that of the deposits above it, a further lapse of 2000 years is 
easily accounted for, though this particular argument must be 
applied with caution and cannot be regarded as conclusive. 

A fauna of possibly slightly earlier date than that found at Kilgreany 
has been found and described from Aveline’s Hole in the County of Somerset. 
This fauna was associated amongst other things with an harpoon of the type 
Magdalenian 6 b. P.B.S.S., Vol. I, p. 69, and fig. 10, i. 



Clonmel Antiquities. — In connection with Mr. Lyons’ paper, 
published in the Journal for December, 1936, Dr. Thomas J. Crean, 
of Brighton Place, Clonmel, who is much interested in the local 
antiquities, has forwarded some notes on the siege of 1650, etc. 

Mary Hayden. 

“ The reasons for thinking Cromwell made the breacli in the 
North wall, somewhere near the North or Lough Gate, are : — 

1. The North gate was called Breach Gate, and Lough Street 
(Gladstone Street) Breach Street for some years after the siege. 

2. In digging foundations for houses about 1835 on the west side 
of Gladstone Street about 30 yards from the North gate fragments 
of matchlocks, helmets, breast-plates, buckles and bullets, evidently 
dating from the siege, were found. 3. At the other side of the 
street, exactly opposite, a piece of a 42 lb., cannon ball was found. 

The lane O Neill made was 80 yards long, its walls “ a man’s 
height,” and the cannon at the end were “ invisible opposite to 
the breach . If it ran in at right angles to the town wall, the soldiers 
would have immediately detected the trap and would not have 
been caught as they were. It therefore probably ran obliquely 
from the breach towards Lough Street, forming an acute angle 
with the North wall. The breach was probably to the w^est of the 
North gate. 

The towers on the waU were about 60 yards apart. Cromwell 
probably made the breach about midway between the North gate 
and the next tower, Le., about 30 yards from the North gate. 
This would take O Neill’s lane across Lough Street (hence called 
Breach Street), and houses in Lough Street might, as some historians 
assert, have been used for purposes of defence. 

What were Cromw^ell’s soldiers doing before Clonmel for two 
months before the assault was dehvered ? His cannon would have 
made a breach in the wall in about four hours. The cannon made 
for Phihp of Spain about the time of the Armada w'ere used by 
Wellington in the Peninsular War, and w^ere found quite serviceable. 
According to the “ Aphorismical Discovery,” O Neill constructed 
‘‘ brave works ” for the defence of the town some months before 
the siege. Where W'ere these “ brave works ” (I presume earth- 
works), and how much did they prolong the defence ? In describing 
the attack on the breach the “ Aphorismical Discovery ” mentions 
a counterscarp. In old leases a structure called the barrior,” 
possibly outside the North gate, is mentioned. There was also a 
ditch there. I have always thought that O Neill, who w'as an 
•experienced professional soldier, had constructed earth-works 
around the town.” 


[Dr. Crean encloses a sketch map, on which he shows the hue 
of the town wall as running straight from the junction of Mary 
Street and Bolton Street (he notes that up to a few years ago there 
was a ridge across the road here) to the tower marked 7 on Mr. 
Lyons’ map, and again as running straight from that tower to 
the site of the East gate. He adds that the exact positions of the 
North and East gates, have been found by excavation, and that 
he saw the foundations of the East gate. — Ed.] 

With reference to Mr. Lyons’ paper on Clonmel Antiquities, a 
few personal recollections may be of interest. 

During my time in Clonmel (from 1864 to 1912), while alterations 
were being made to a shop at the north-east corner of Dowd’s 
Lane, the contractor came on what appeared to be a burial ground, 
just outside where the old town was. The earth w^as black and 
full of small broken fragments of bones. The spot was subsequently 
built over. 

The bank discovered under the roadway at the top of Mary 
Street is interesting, but I doubt if it went under the churchyard, 
which has been in continuous use for centuries. Could it be a 
passage way from the church? 

There was an old local tradition that Main Street (O’Connell 
Street) had originally a row of houses down the centre. 

There never w^as a weir at the Gas House Bridge. I fished the 
river regularly for 20 years or more and knew every turn in it. 

Blue Anchor Lane was not called Shambles Lane. In my 
father’s young days the Blue Anchor had a small theatre at the 
back, and the lane was looked on as one of the superior lanes. 
Shambles Lane is off the side of Gladstone Street. 

Edward Fayle. 

[Mr. Lyons suggests that the supposed burial ground at Dowd’s 
Lane may, in the absence of proof that the remains found were 
human, have been only the midden of the soldiers living in the 
tower over the East Gate. — Ed.] 

Three-ringed Fort at Clonacody, Co. Tipperary. Mr. Patrick 
Lyons, Fellow, has deposited in the Society’s rooms a plan and 
description of this earthwork, which is in the Parish of Baptist- 
grange. The central space is flat, about 66 feet in diameter, and 
surrounded by three rings or ramparts ; the inner rampart is 6 feet 
high and 21 feet wide, and the two outer are each 5 feet high ; the 
ditches separating the ramparts are about 9 feet wide. The whole 



work is about 192 feet in diameter. It is surrounded on three 
sides by a rectangular fence, which Mr. Lyons believes to be modern. 
Its local name is “ Lalor’s Fort.” 

Find of Skulls in Goldenfort, Co. Wicklow. Mr. Micheal Harrington,. 
N.T., Stratford-on-Slaney, has kindly forwarded the following note, 
which he took down in January, 1937, from Tom Fleming, of 
Goldenfort, aged 74 years. 

“ About 35 years ago I was digging gravel in a pit nearby. Over 
the gravel pit there was an old fort. James Moore (now dead) was 
with me. We worked well underneath for a big fall of gravel. It 
came down and with it three big skulls and other bones — ^human 
bones. The skulls were very big, much bigger than any skulls 
to-day. They had all the teeth but no hair. We buried them 
again under the sand. Long ago there was a monastery beside 
the graveyard in Rathbran, and it is believed that the monks were 
all massacred in the fort. The old people say that there w^ere 
terrible battles fought around the place in olden times.” 

[Note. — The place referred to as a “ fort ” is about 200 yards 
south-west of Goldenfort House, at the top of a low hill or rise in 
the ground, part of which has been dug away for sand. The find 
suggests that this may possibly be a prehistoric burial site. About 
500 yards away, in the townland of Gibraltar, is a large rath, from 
which the parish of Rathbran gets its name : this is probably the 
place called Rath Branduibh in the story of the Battle of Dun Bolg 
(see Journ. Kild. Arch. Soc., v, p. 285). — Ed.] 

Sheela-na-Gig at Kilmacomma, Co. Waterford. As a result of 
information supphed by Mr. Edwin Fayle, Fellow, it has been 
estabhshed that a Sheela-na-gig existed at this place, which is a 
mile south-south-east from Clonmel. The antiquity was found 
about fifty years ago by the late John Gibbons, farmer, when 
raising sand in his sand-pit ; and as he was building a barn at the 
time, he inserted the affair in one of the gables. Some time after 
a high bank of sand in the sand-pit fell on Gibbons and killed him, 
with the result that his death was attributed to the mafign influence 
of the Sheela. Subsequently on account — it is stated — of trespass 
by persons coming to see the Sheela, Michael Gibbons, son to John 
Gibbons, removed the affair from the barn-gable, and hid it, and 


he is unable to find it ; so for the present Sheela is again in eclipse. 
From the meagre description available this Sheela was about 
two and a half feet in height, and it had eyes, a mouth, and a nose. 

Patrick Lyons. 

Sheela-na-gig, Clenagh Castle, Co. Clare. Mr. J. N. A. Wallace 
has kindly sent a photograph of this newly discovered figure for 
the Society’s collection. It is incised on a quoin stone a few feet 
from the ground on the S.E. angle of the Castle. The figure is 
very crude ; it has some resemblance to the Bunratty figure illustra- 
ted in the Journal for 1936, Plate XXIV, but has much less detail. 
It does not look ancient. The figure was discovered by Sgt. S. 
O Longaigh, Member. 

Coin Hoard in Co. Clare. — Over three months ago some work- 
men opening a sandpit at Barntick, about one and a half miles 
S.W. of Clarecastle, Co. Clare, came on a coin hoard. Unfortunately 
most of the coins w^ere given or thrown away. Mr. E. F. Kerin, 
a member of Clare Co. Council, brought me a few. They were silver 
pennies of Edward I, II or III, of the same t3rpe as those twice 
previously reported by me in the Journal recently. Some seven 
in all were sent to the National Museum by Mr. Kerin. It is 
curious that three finds of these coins should occur in Co. Clare in 
the space of two years, although the late Thos. J. Westropp was 
only aware of two finds of coins prior in date to Elizabeth up to 
his time. 

Dermot F. Gleeson, Member. 

The Circuit of Muirchertach. — In the June issue of the Journal, 
Mr. Henry Morris contributes a very interesting paper on the 
Circuit of Ireland by Muirchertach of the Leather Cloaks in 941. 
He very properly stresses errors made by both O’Donovan and 
O’Laverty and corrects them ; but even with these corrections, 
the metrical account of the circuit contains so many physical 
impossibilities, that I "would suggest that the chief writer to be 
corrected is Cormacan himself. If he actually accompanied the 
army in person, journeying on foot say 20 miles a day for 33 or 
probably more days on end, over a country without roads as we 



understand the term, in the short days of winter, in all weathers, 
it is not to be conceived that he carried with him cumbrous wax 
tablets or skins, etc., which were the fore-runners of our modem 
notebooks, or that he could have settled down at the end of each 
day to record events. Manifestly he wrote the metrical version 
of the ‘ Circuit ’ after he got back, which would to some extent 
account for the impossibilities that it contains. 

I propose to deal only with the opening days of the circuit which 
covers country with which I am fairly familiar. 

(1) In the first midwinter day the army marched from Aileach 
over the Carntogher Hills, crossed the Bann at the ford of Camas 
and camped at Enach Cross, a distance, as the crow flies, of 40 
miles, carrying their arms, accoutrements and heavy leather cloaks. 
It must be remembered that the rate at which a battalion of a 
thousand men could march and remain intact is the rate at which 
the weakest member could march ; could such a one out of a 
thousand picked men accomplish this, to say nothing of the whole 
thousand ? 

(2) Arrived at Enach Cross, “ the men of Aileach had a pleasant 
night and carried off on the morrow as their first hostage Loingsech 
of Maghlinne, King of Dalaradia.” One is tempted to ask, what 
on earth was Loingsech doing at Enach Cross, out of his own territory 
in winter? His fortress was either Lis na Loingsech (Lisnalinchy) 
or Rathmore. Mr. Morris in a footnote suggests that Loingsech 
“ went down to Enach Cross to meet Muirchertach and to give 
himself up.” Why should he ? The whole motif of the circuit 
was a mid-winter surprise, so that it was apparently impossible 
that Loingsech could have known anything about it. 

(3) The next day’s march was to Dun Eachdach, the modem 
Dunagh}^ beside Clough, a distance of 16 miles. Here the poem 
says, they seized the King of the Uladh ; we might again ask what 
was he doing here ? His headquarters might have been at Down 
or any of the other fortresses in Uladh, or he may have been at 
Moira, but certainly not at Dunaghy in Dalriada. 

(4) Then comes a march from Dunaghy to Moira, some 36 miles 
as the crow flies, but more if we allow for a digression to avoid 
the hilly country around Camearney Mountain. The natural 
stopping place between Dunaghy and Moira was the important 
fortress of Rathmore, where Loingsech, King of Dalaradia would 
naturally be in residence. I contend that the army could not 
have marched in one short winter’s day, encumbered as it was, 
from Dunaghy to Moira, any more than it could have marched 
in one day from Aileach to Enach Cross. Even if the army were 




accompanied by horses to carry the baggage, and the narrative 
does not suggest such a thing, I maintain that 18 to 20 miles a 
day without stopping for an odd day’s rest would be the utmost, 
if not more than the limit of human endurance under any cir- 
cumstances, not to speak of the difficulties that beset Muirchertach’s 
army, could stand. Therefore I submit that Cormacan’s story 
is impossible ; either his memory was at fault, or he took poetic 
hcense to exaggerate the prowess of the army and its leader ; 
probably both. I suggest that two days were taken to march 
from Aileach to Enach Cross ; one day thence to Dunaghy as in 
the narrative ; one day thence to Rathmore, 18 miles, and that 
it was here Loingsech was captured, not at Enach Cross ; one 
day thence to Moira, the next to Glenn Righe, and so on. I cannot 
suggest where the King of the Uladh was taken, probably at Moira. 
The route taken by Muirchertach was apparently the same as 
followed 63 years later by Brian Born in his circuit, that is via 
the ford of Camas to Dunaghy where it joined the Slighe Midluachra 
and south by Antrim or Rathmore, Moira and so to Newry and 
the Moirach Pass to Dundalk, etc. Unfortunately Mr. Morris 
has been a little neghgent in drawing his map ; he has placed 
Dunaghy much too near Antrim, shortening the distance from 
the former to Moira, and so wrongly tending to equalise the 
lengths of the days’ marches. 

As to the distance an army can cover in a non-stop march. 
Lord Robert’s march from Cabul to Kandahar is famous in military 
history. The distance was 310 miles as the crow flies ; with horses 
and mules to carry artillery and baggage, the time taken was 23 
days, less than 14 miles per day. 

H. C. Lawlor. 

Hanging Bowls. On Plate XII, Fig. 2, and Plate XIII, will 
be found photographs of two hanging bowls which did not arrive 
in time to be included in the last issue of the Journal. 

One of the bowls is in Fort William Museum. Only the rim is 
preserved, showing that the bowl had a diameter of 5J inches. 
Both rim and escutcheon suggest a very close analogy with the 
Wilton bowl (see Journal, vol. LXVI, PI. XXIII, 1). But the 
combination of peltae, difierent from those on the Wilton and 
Timmel bridge bowls, is identical with that of the Baginton bowl. 
(Id, PI. XXV, 1). This goes to reinforce the hypothesis of a 
British model copied by the artist who made the Baginton bowl, 
whilst the casting of the head of the escutcheon, much thinner 

Plate XTl.] 

[To face j)a^e lliO. 

Kk;. 1. (Jallans, Barryshall, Co. Cork. 

Ft(!. 2. Han(jtn(J Bowl, Fortwilliam Museum. 


'■‘f M 

* -it: 

■ -J 


Plate XIIL] 

[To face page 131. 

Hanlinc Bowl, Leiden, Holland. 

Handle of Leiden Bowl. 



on the Baginton escutcheon than on the non-enamelled bowls 
(Wilton and Fort William), shows that the Baginton bowl is of 
different fabrication. ^ 

The second bowl, preserved in Leiden Museum, was found in 
the autumn of 1935 in the river Maas. It has a diameter of 10 J 
inches. It has three handles fixed on to the bowl each by three 
rivets. The enamel, at present of a yellowish white in the squares 
and greenish in the background, was probably yellow and red as 
on the bowls found in Norway, the red, by oxidation having turned 
green as usual. The bowl belongs clearly to the same group as 
the Miklebostad bowl, but it does not seem to have had millefiori 
glass included in the enamel. The modelling of the human head 
is very different from that of the Miklebostad and Loland handles 
{Journal, Vol. LXVI, PI. XXXVI and XXXVIII), but the dis- 
position of the handle is the same. The x shaped design in the 
lowest compartment seems to be a conventional rendering of crossed 
legs, so that the figure would be reaUy in the same attitude as 
the little Buddha-Hke figures on the handles of the Oseberg bucket. 

I am glad to thank Mr. A. 0. Curie and Miss Sheila MacDonald, 
curator of Fort William Museum, for information on the Fort 
WiUiam Bowl, and Dr. W. Braat, curator of Leiden Museum, for 
allowing me to reproduce the Leiden Bowl, which has never been 

Francoise Henry. 

Gallans at Banyshall, Co. Cork. There are in the townland of 
Barryshall, near Timoleague, two pairs of standing stones which 
look hke part of an ahgnment. The largest is 7 ft. 10 ins. high, 
and seven feet from it is a smaller stone 3 ft. 6 ins. high. 48 
yards away from this, in the same fine to the north-east, is the 
larger of a second pair ; this is 6 ft. high, and about five feet away 
from it is the fourth stone, the top of which has been broken off : it 
is now 4 ft. high. The photograph (Plate XII, fig. 1) is taken 
from the end of the fine, and shows the tallest stone in the fore- 
ground. There do not appear to be any artificial markings on 
any of the stones. 

G. C. Whiteside. 

Easter Cycles in the Irish Church. — In the article in this Journal 
of June, 1936, (p. 67) the writer. Rev. D. J. O’Connell, S.J., referring 
to Dr. MacCarthy’s Introduction to the Annals of Ulster, says 
“ MacCarthy’s conclusions have never been challenged ” (p. 67). 


I waited to see the December number, hoping that some contributor 
would correct the above statement, but no one has done so. 

May I point out that Dr. MacCarthy’s conclusions have not alone 
been challenged, but have been subjected to a most searchuig and 
apparently destructive criticism by A. Anscombe in the ZeitscJirift 
filr Celtische philologie, Band IV, p. 332 (1903). 

H. Morris. 

Togail Bruidne da Derga. — In order to avoid a digression in my 
paper on the above topic in this Journal for December, 1935, I 
omitted the following passage of great topographical interest. 
When the reavers sent nine men to the summit of the HiU of Howth 
to reconnoitre, they see Conaire’s cavalcade. The tale continues — 
“ They {i.e., the cavalcade) fare to many heights with wondrous 
waters and in vers.” “ What are the waters and heights and in vers 
that they traverse ? ” 

“ Easy to say : Indeoin, Cult, Cuilten, Mdfat, Ammat, larmdfat, 
Finne, Goiste, Guistine.” Stokes Translation, 1902, pp. 42-43. 

Here are the names of nine places visible from the Hill of Howth, 
and it shows the great antiquity of the tale that these names 
belong to a stratum of Irish toponomy that has almost perished. 
Hardly any of these nine places can now be identified. 

Mdfat and Finne do not occur in the Onomasticon at all. 
Cuilten, Ammat, larmdfat, and Goiste do, but the only reference 
Hogan was able to supply for each of these was the single one from 
this tale. 

Cult under the form Colt is a hill in southern Bregh, that is 
frequently mentioned in other tales, but so far it remains un- 

Indeoin occurs in Teffia, where it is a river — ^the Dungolman 
river, and again in Co. Tipperary, where it is the name of a hill. 
So the Indeoin, near Dublin, may be either a hill or a river, most 
probably the latter. In the “ Book of the O’Bjrrnes ” there is a 
reference to it — deoigh a ndeoigh 6 Binn Edair go hInndeoinF 

Guistine is mentioned in the Dindsenchus of Teamair, where 
it is called “ shining Goistine,” so that it is almost certainly a 

Finne would appear to be an old name for the river Tolka, 
stiU preserved in the name of the village of Finglas, situated near 
the Tolka. 

Could any reader of this Journal throw further light on these 
place-names % 

H. Morris. 

( 133 ) 


Books marked thus * are by members of the Society 

The Irish Countryman. By Conrad M. Arensberg, Ph.D. Pp. ix+ 
216. London : MacMillan & Co. 10s. 6d. 

This remarkably interesting volume represents the first fruits 
of the expedition sent to Co. Clare from the Department of Anthro- 
pology of Harvard University. With Professor Lloyd Warner and 
Dr. Kimball, the author “ campaigned ” in Clare for the best 
part of two years, ostensibly as a “ collector of old customs,” 
but really, as this book shows, as a very acute and highly trained 
observer of the facts — and fancies — underlying and directing social 
life and behaviour in the more remote west. He presents some 
of his results in this work, which is based on six lectures given 
at Boston University in March, 1936. It may be said at once 
that the work carried out, and here in part at least described, 
represents something entirely new : it is as remote from the ‘ ‘ travel 
book ” or even the “ regional survey ” as a study in anatomy is 
from “ John Bull’s Other Island.” Far from making the book less 
appeahng, this very quahty of scientific detachment and the expert 
assembly of facts from continued observation which accompany 
it, so impress the reader, that he will find in it more stimulus than 
in the most brilliant imaginative tour deforce. The author lived for 
a considerable time in a small cottage in Luogh. He describes in 
detail the life and work of the people on the land, discusses such 
questions as the significance of the “ western room,” when a “ boy ” 
becomes a “ man,” “ shops, pubs and fairs,” and the “ Good 
People.” It may be that readers who five close to the imderstanding 
of these thuigs — and in this age they must be few even in Ireland — 
will find little new to them in the facts presented ; but their actual 
assembly and presentation is novel and masterly in the extreme. 
The significance of the family and the blood tie, of the deep roots 
of the family in the land, emerge as central points in a rural society 
which has, so far at least, survived the assaults of modernism. 
The writer’s examination of the reasons why famihes remain rooted 
in a particular farm for generations while the names over the 
shops of the average country town change every twenty-five years 
or so, is of very great interest : most of us knew it was so, but 


have not bothered to inquire further. Facts only are presented — 
conclusions are seldom drawn and speculation is shunned. This 
enables the author to avoid controversy and to some extent disarm 
criticism, since his facts are for the most part incontrovertible. 
Some gaps will be noted : no attempt is made to examme, for 
example, the difficult question of true inter-relation of religion 
and social institutions — the relation of the author’s “ fourth 
Ireland ” to the other three — no doubt the author will say it was 
outside his province : nor is there any discussion of the disagreeable 
situations which sometimes arise from the retiral of the old people 
to the ‘‘ western room.” No doubt we will hear more of these 
matters and of nepotism and “ influence ” — to which passing 
allusion is made — in a more elaborate presentation. Pending this, 
the importance and interest of this book can hardly be exaggerated. 
The style is quite remarkably facile, if one may perhaps except 
the frequency of “ dictionary ” words in the introductory chapter. 
The proof reading — a particularly important matter in a work of this 
kind — has been most careful : a shght shp (p. 24), where ‘‘ rubrics ” 
are confounded with “ sacramentals,” being perhaps the only one 
in the wffiole work. Altogether this is the most stimulating piece 
of work done in Ireland for a very considerable time, and every 
reader will hope there is more to follow. 

D. F. G. 

The Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh Reports of the Deputy Keeper 
of the Public Records and Keeper of the State Papers in Ireland. 
Dubhn, The Stationery Office, 1931 and 1936, 3s. 6d. and 5s. 

The Fifty-fifth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records 
contained the first list of documents salved after the explosion 
and fire of 1922 and may be regarded as the primary source of 
information for those who wish to know what is now'^ to be found 
in the Public Record Office. The 56th and 57th Reports carry 
on the information contained in the 55th. They are both big 
reports, the 56th of 420 pages and the 57th of 570. 

The 56th Report deals with the w^ork done during the years 
1924-28. The new treasury was finished by degrees and as accom- 
modation increased it became possible to re-arrange the salved 
documents which had been stored in the vaults or in the Castle 
pending the re -construction. This was in itseK a big job but 
there have also been the normal increments from the courts and 
government offices to deal with. 

The ordinary accretions Would, in course of time, make the Pubhc 



Record Office again into a treasury of valuable historical docu- 
ments. But the older documents are naturally of greater interest 
to us to-day and, with a much depleted staff, the Assistant Deputy 
Keeper (Mr. J. F. Morrissey) has done a vast deal to render what 
was salved accessible. In addition to this he has been able, by 
the generosity of donors and by judicious purchasing, to acquire 
and arrange a large number of documents which, as far as they 
go, replace those which were destroyed. There is a large list of 
donors in each report but many large collections of documents 
must stiU exist in private houses and offices, and Members of 
the Society of Antiquaries who have access to collections of 
documents would be doing a service to their country if they Would 
have them sent to the Public Record Office where, in cases where 
the owners do not Want to part with the originals, copies are made 
of any which are of pubhc interest. In other cases the originals 
are kept and copies given to the donors. 

The Appendices to the 56th and 57th Reports deal largely with 
the re -construction of the Records. Appendix I of the 56th Report 
contains a list of original probates, official copies of wills, etc., 
covering over 5,000 names. Appendix II gives the Chancery 
documents and has a further 2,000 odd names. In the Appendices 
to the 57th Report are further lists with over 8,000 names with a 
further list from court papers of 1,000 so that in these two reports 
some particulars of over 16,000 persons are to be found. This is 
a very valuable step in the reconstruction of records as far as 
such reconstruction is possible. Appendix V of the 56th Report 
gives information as to collections where copies of documents 
which were destroyed in the fire and explosion can be consulted. 
It is possible that in time copies may be made for the Record Office 
but the securing and indexing of documents of which copies are 
not known to exist in accessible collections is of obviously greater 

In addition to the lists referred to in the preceding paragraph 
there are several interesting appendices in each of the reports. 
In the 56th Report Appendix IV deals with a recently acquired 
collection of Sarsfield-Vesey deeds and correspondence which 
runs from 1414 to 1841. The estates of Sir Wilham Sarsfield in 
Dubhn, Kildare, Wicklow and Carlow are the main subject of the 
collection but the correspondence which covers the years 1673- 
1814 deals with matters of wider interest. Extracts from some of 
the letters have been printed in Appendix IV as have some accounts 
including the funeral expenses of Lady Butler Vesey (1745) and 
the expenses of a journey from Dublin to Kinsale to attend the 
election of Magistrates (1765). Both the deeds and correspondence 


are indexed. Appendix VIII which gives a list of the transcripts 
known to exist of destroyed parish registers will he useful to 

The 57th Report has an Appendix III with extracts from the 
Greville Estate Papers. These papers give a number of particulars 
of the condition of part of Co. Cavan before and during the famine 
years 1847-1851. In the same Appendix is an account of a MS. 
entitled “ Extracts from the Cartulary of Sir Richard Shee.” 
This MS. w'as found by Mr. T. U. Sadleir (Deputy Ulster) and 
presented to the Public Record Office. It is apparently the tran- 
script exhibited to the Kilkenny Archaeological Society in 1864 
by Mr. John G. A. Prim and deals with the family of Shee in Co. 
Kilkenny from the sixteenth century and includes some earlier 
deeds beginning with a charter of 1241. {See Journal of the 
Kilkenny Archaeological Society, 1864, Vol. V, new series, p. 54). 
The same appendix also describes and gives extracts from a valuable 
collection of documents of Sir Cyril Wyche, chief secretary to the 
Lord Lieutenant during the latter part of the term of office of the 
Earl of Essex (1676-7) and that of the Duke of Ormond (1677-85), 
which has been purchased. Wyche was later appointed one of 
the Lords Justices and maintained his connection with Ireland 
until 1706. The Wyche documents, extracts and hsts cover 40 
pages of the appendix. Appendix IV of the 57th Report is a 
rental of Landgable Rents for the City of Dubhn in the year 1665. 
This appendix also contains a “ List of Houses in the City of Dubhn 
and Number of Hearths in each for 1664 ” with the addition of 
the names of the proprietors of houses with six hearths or more, 
a most interesting hst. 

Altogether the tw^o reports here review^ed with the previously 
review’ed 55th Report {see Vol. LIX, p. 72) show that the work 
of reconstructing the Pubhc Record Office has progressed steadily. 
The Assistant Deputy Keeper should be congratulated on the 
amount he has been able to do with the very small staff which he 
has had ever since the destruction of the Record Office. 

Commentarius Rinuccinianus. Vol. II. Dubhn : Irish MSS. 

Commission. 30/-. 

This second volume of the Rinuccini Commentary covers the 
period between the landing of the Nuncio at Keiimare Bay, October 
21, 1645, and the end of 1647. It is the period of the negotiation 



between the Catholic Confederacy and Ormond, who decHned to 
use the ample powers received from the King to satisfy Catholics. 

Pohtics for Charles I. had ended in 1642, and war began. The 
King was in dire distress, and yet Ormond, with his Anglo-Norman 
chque, continued to haggle about terms for the rehef of the King — 
whether they should include pubhc recognition of the rights of the 
Cathohc Church or be confined to mere pohtical concessions. 

Charles had written to the Nuncio, April 30, 1645 (before his 
coming to Ireland) : “ Entendant de vostre resolution pour 

rirlande, nous nous doubtons point, que les choses n’yront bien, 
et que les bonnes intentions commences par effect du dernier Pape 
ne s’accompHsseront par celuys, icy, et par vos moyens, en notre 
Royaume dTrlande et d’Angleterre joignissant avec nostre cher 
cousin le Comte de Glamorgan, avec qui ce que vous resolvez, nous 
y tiendrons obhgez et Tachevrons a son retours . . . et rien ne 
manquera de nostre coste a perfectionez ce que a quoy il s’obligera 
en notre nom ; aut prix des faveurs receues par nos moyens. Fiez 
vous duncques a luy.” 

Neither Charles’s resolve nor Glamorgan’s good faith was worth 
much. Charles had a strange genius of being both obstinate and 
diffident — he was diffident in deahng with Ormond, and he was 
obstinate in granting to Glamorgan a guarantee for Cathohcs to 
hold their ancient churches. When the Glamorgan treaty became 
a pubhc document on the death of Archbishop Queely of Tuam in 
battle, 1645, Glamorgan was accused of high treason, and it was 
stated that, rather than consent to rehgious concessions, “ those 
about the King would throw Charles out the window.” 

Yet, nothwithstanding Glamorgan’s “ treason,” he was released, 
evidently on the understanding that he should return to the 
Confederates at Kilkenny as an ardent promoter of the Ormond 
plan. Irish Cathohcs preferred a truce to ahow them to send help 
to the stricken King, leaving the definite peace to better times. 
But Glamorgan adhered to the Ormond Peace as the only means 
of obtaining “ further concessions.” The King was negotiating, 
through his Cathohc wife, with the Papal representative in Rome 
for a grant of 100,000 Roman crowns for the restoration of the 
Cathohc Rehgion in Ireland. Owen Roe O’Neih had won the 
Battle of Benburb against the Scots, and his victory was acclaimed 
in Rome, and a further promise of money was made. The Ormond 
chque in the Cathohc Confederacy was not impressed with these 
victories, and the attack of the new Supreme Council on Dublin 
was a fiasco. It was considered that the only thing left to the 
Nuncio was a new union of the Irish based upon their faith and an 
appeal to Rome and France for money and military supphes. 


This huge volume of 808 pages has been carefully prepared for 
the press by the Rev. Fr. Stanislaus, O.M.Cap., but unfortunately 
a Latin synopsis of 18 pages is the only clue to its contents. 

"^Register of the Hospital of S. John the Baptist without the New 
Gate, Dublin. Edited by Eric St. John Brooks, M.A., 
Litt.D. (Irish MSS. Commission. 1936. One guinea). 

In a detailed and interesting introduction of twenty pages Dr. 
Brooks teUs us of the provenance of this valuable Register which 
was compiled towards the end of the third quarter of the 14th 
century. He pays a generous tribute to Mr. Charles McNeill, 
who traced the early history of the Hospital in a paper contributed 
to the Journal of this Society in 1925, and also worked out the 
history of the MS. from the Dissolution to its acquisition by Ware 
in Vol. V. of the County Louth Archaeological Journal. The 
work indeed is one of generous collaboration. Dr. Brooks, working 
on the manuscript (which is now among the Rawlinson MSS. in 
the Bodleian Library) has given us the complete text and spared 
no labour or skill in making it thorough. 

The Deeds run from the first founder and Prior, Aihed the 
Palmer, a Dublin Ostman {circa 1180) to about 1400. Naturally 
most of the properties were in Dubhn and its environs, but of the 
rest the bulk lay in Co. Tipperary. Withhi the space allowed him 
by the purposes of the MSS. Commission, Dr. Brooks has done 
much to identify some puzzfing placenames. He has given us a 
full and very helpful index, and altogether the MSS. Commission 
may be congratulated in havmg the services of such a scholar 
and enthusiast for his subject as Dr. Brooks. 

While praising the subject matter of this volume, we feel bound 
to reflect on the inferior quality of the paper. Purchasers of so 
expensive a volume may well expect better value from the 
Government department which directs these productions. 

^The Islands of Ireland. By Thomas H. Mason. Batsford. 
10s. 6d. 

Mr. Mason sets out to give a popular accomit of what he has 
seen and heard on the islands and succeeds remarkably wed. 
One involuntarily compares his account of Aran vfith the film 
“ Man of Aran ” and is once again impressed by the limitations 



of the cinema. Mr. Mason’s pages with their anecdotes, descriptions 
and photographs give a more vivid and intimate impression of the 
life there. The book is a photographer’s book all through. The 
plates are set pictures and the quick observations of passing 
events that form the text are like snapshots. Many of the 
photographs are utilitarian, serving to illustrate some description ; 
all are good and some are very beautiful pictures. The book is 
varied ; antiquities, folk-lore, natural history and personal 
experiences are thrown together as they dropped from the author’s 
mind in a conversational fashion. If a criticism may be ventured 
it is that at times the force of a story or observation is lessened 
by the pointmg of a moral which is already obvious to a sympathetic 

The book is well produced, the reproduction of the many pictures 
being exceptionally pleasing. 

*The Parish of Devenish, County Fermanagh. By Rev. William 
B. Steele, B.A. Enniskillen, Fermanagh Times Office. Price 
7s. 6d. 

Professor Eoin MacNeill has said that the ‘ County History ’ is 
not the proper way to Write local history in Ireland, as the counties 
in this country are artificial divisions of comparatively recent 
date. A writer of local history must however, if his Work is to 
be useful, confine himseh to an area with some sort of easily ascer- 
tained boundary. Mr. Steele has taken what is perhaps the most 
suitable unit, the parish : in this case, the old and famous parish 
of Devenish. He modestly calls his book “ Materials for Its 
History,” but in fact he covers all the ground, if we except the 
prehistoric period, which is only slightly touched on. No doubt 
he considers this would not be parish history, but it is a pity all 
the same that he does not give descriptions and measurements 
of the raths, etc., that he mentions, as he evidently has a very 
complete and detailed knowledge of the whole area. His first 
chapter gives a list of the townlands in the parish, with the meaning 
of each name ; here he has been helped by Mr. George Ruth, and 
the difficulty of being certain about some of the explanations is 
admitted. The book then deals with the parish from the time of 
St. Molaise, whose death is recorded at 563 A.D., up to the present, 
and it ends with a good deal of 17th and 18th century genealogical 
material. It quotes from documents copied in the Public Record 
Office before its destruction. An interesting feature is the descrip- 


tion of some of the early Plantation Castles, such as Monea which 
the author says is the finest example in Co. Fermanagh. He 
gives a good photograph of it, facing p. 113. If a word of criticism 
may be offered on a small point it is that to describe the Culdees 
baldly as “ a Monastic Order,” vdth seats at Devenish, Armagh, 
etc., is perhaps a little too definite : what, for instance, of the 
Rule attributed to St. Carthach or to Fothad na Canoine, in which 
the Culdees and the monks are treated in distinct sections ? And 
what of the development in Scotland where the Culdees appear in 
the guise, more or less, of Regular Canons ? The book has a 
good index. 

Etudes Celtiques. Publiees par J. Vendryes, avec le concours 
de plusieurs savants Frangais et etrangers. No. I. Juin, 1936. 
No. 2 Novembre, 1936. Paris : Librairie E. Droz. 

It is hardly too much to say that the passing of the “ Revue 
Celtique,” after some six decades of fruitful activity, was felt by 
aU Celticists to be a real calamity. We had come to think that 
the organ into which Gaidoz, d’Arbois de JubainviUe, Loth, 
Ernault and Dottin — clara et venerabilia nomina — had infused 
so much life must go on living for ever. What a shock to complacency 
to learn that the weU-beloved friend was no more ! It is an open 
secret, however, that the demise of the great review was due to 
accident, and that its loss does not reflect the slightest discredit 
on modern French scholarship. If any doubt on this point lingered 
it has been dispelled by the publication of a new series “ Etudes 
Celtiques ” under the supremely capable editorship of Professor 
Vendryes. But two numbers have so far appeared, yet these are 
enough to show that the “ Etudes ” have succeeded to the fuU 
inheritance of their predecessor. Miss M-L. Sjoestedt holds the 
editorial secretaryship and contributes the first article (on the 
legend of Cuchulainn and Gallic coinage) to the new journal. 
Other contributors to the two numbers include A. M. Freeman, 
A. G. Van Hamel, A. Wade-Evans, Seamas Pender and Miss M. 
Dobbs. Book notices, as in the old Revue, are carefully and 
competently written. Special attention may, perhaps, be called 
to the review by M. Vendryes of Professor O’RahiUy’s original 
essay on “ The Goidels and their Predecessors.” The “ Chronique,” 
again, in the numbers to hand, is in forty -nine sections, dealing 
with persons, enterprises, articles, studies, and brimful of information 
which every student of things Celtic should possess. 

J. R. 



The Compossicion Booke of Gonought. Transcribed by A. Martin 
Freeman for the Irish Manuscripts Commission. (Stationery 
Office, 7s. 6d.). 

The original Roll of the Composition of Connacht appears to 
have perished with the destruction of the Pubhc Record Office 
in 1922. There is still extant, however, in the British Museum 
an early- eighteenth century transcript, made by a certain John 
Moore, “ a careless and incompetent practitioner.” It is this trans- 
cript that Mr. Freeman has now pubhshed under the auspices of 
the Irish Manuscripts Commission. Owing to Moore’s ignorance 
of the EHzabethan hand and his lack of consideration for the sense 
of his exemplar two of the most important elements in the book, the 
figures and the names of persons and places, have been transmitted 
to us in so inaccurate a manner that, unfortunately, as Mr. Freeman 
remarks in his Introduction, httle confidence in them is possible. 
StiU, it is not unlikely that the local historian of any particular 
district in Connacht will eventually recognise the correct form of 
the place-names hidden as they may be beneath Moore’s voces 
nihili. Hardiman, in his edition of O’Flaherty’s lar-Connacht, 
gave in substance the Indentures portion of the Composition. 
The pubhcation of the entire Roll is to be welcomed ; it will prove 
of immense assistance to the student of Irish land tenures, as well 
as to the investigator of Connacht toponymy. The short Intro- 
duction provided by Mr. Freeman — it does not cover three pages — 
shows shps that suggest lack of care in proof-reading. There is 
no Index. 

( 142 ) 


Meetings of the Society were held as follows : — 

1. — 26th January, 1937. Annual General Meeting, at the 
Society’s House, Dubhn, 5.30 o’clock p.m. T. P. Le Fanu, C.B., 
M.R.I.A., President, in the Chair. 

The Chairman declared the following to be elected to their 
respective offices, no other nominations having been received : — 

President : — 

Eoin MacNeill, Litt.D., M.R.I.A., Fellow. 

Vice-Presidents : — 

Capt J. E. FitzPatrick, Fellow. 

H. G. Lease, M.R.I.A.I., M.R.I.A., Fellow. 

Hon. General Secretary 

Charles McNeill, Fellow. 

Hon. Treasurer : — 

J. J. Buckley, M.P.I.A., Fellow. 

Members of Council : — 

Major H. F. McClintock, Fellow. 

Thomas H. Mason, Fellow. 

John J. Fitzgerald, M.D., Fellow. 

Honorary Auditors : — 

Capt. E. Erskine West, Fellow. 

George B. Symes, Member. 

On the Nomination of the Council, Capt. J. E. FitzPatrick and 
Dr. Adolf Mahr were elected Honorary Fellows of the Society. 

Five Members were added to the Roll of the Society. 

The Report of the Council for 1936 was adopted and ordered 
to be printed. 

The following Paper was read : — 

“ Irish Textile Printing Factories in the 18th Century.” By 
Miss Ada K. Longfield, Member. 



2. — 2nd March, 1937, at the Society’s House, Dublin, at 8 o’clock 
p.m. Eoin MacNeill, President, in the Chair. 

The following Paper was read : — 

“ Early Irish Enamels.” By Mademoiselle Francoise 
Henry, Hon. Fellow. 

3. — 13th April, 1937. A Quarterly Meeting at the Society’s 
House, DubHn, at 5.30 o’clock p.m. Eoin MacNeill, President, 
in the Chair. 

The Report of the Auditors for 1936 was received and adopted. 

On the motion of E. E. West, Fellow, seconded by John Maher, 
Member, Rule 16 was amended to read as foUoWs : — “ The Officers 
of the Society shall be a President, who must be a Fellow, one or 
more Vice-Presidents for each Province, also to be Fellows and to 
hold office for three years from the date of election ; one or more 
Hon. Gen. Secretaries and an Hon. Treasurer who may be either 
Fellows or Members. 

It shall be within the discretion of the Council to propose an 
additional Vice-President for any Province, to hold office for one 
year from the date of election.” 

Consequential amendments were made to Rules 18 and 19. 

Fourteen Members Were added to the RoU of the Society. 

The following Paper was read : — 

“ The Partholon Legend.” By Henry Morris, Member. 

1st May, 1937. An Excursion was made to Howth, Swords, 
and St. Doolagh’s. The party numbered 63. 

4. — 25th May, 1937, at the Society’s House, Dublin, at 8 o’clock 
p.m. Eom MacNeill, President, in the Chair. 

The following Paper was read : — 

“ Some further Seals out of the Ormond Archives.” By 
Professor E. Curtis, Fellow. 

The Hon. Gen. Secretary gave a short description of St. Doolagh’s 
Church, which had been visited recently by the Society, and showed 
members a number of slides of the budding from the Society’s 



At the Annual General Meeting of the Society held on 28th January, 

1936, the following were elected to their respective offices : — 

President : — T. P. Le Fanij, C.B., M.R.I.A., Fellow. 

Vice-Presidents : Ulster — The Lady Dorothy Lowry-Corry, 

Fellow. Munster — Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dmiraven, Fellow. 

Leinster — Charles McNeill, Fellow. Connacht — The O’Conor 

Don, Fellow. 

Members of Council : John Maher, Member ; Rev. John L. 

Robinson, M.A., Fellow ; Rev. John Ryan, S.J., M.R.I.A. 


Hon. General Secretary : Capt. J. E. FitzPatrick, Fellow. 

Hon. Treasurer : John J. Buckley, M.R.I.A., Fellow. 

Hon. Auditors : Capt. Erskine E. West, Fellow ; George B. 

Symes, Member. 

Eight Meetings of the Society were held and the following papers 

read : — 

Some Medieval Irish Seals out of the Ormond Archives. By 
E. Curtis, 28th January, 1936. 

The Circuit of Ireland by Muirchertach na gCochall gCroiceann, 
A.D. 941. By Henry Morris, 10th March, 1936. 

The “ Mantle of St. Brigid ” at Bruges. By H. F. McClintock, 
21st April, 1936. 

Easter Cycles in the Early Irish Church. By Rev. D. J. 
O’Connell, 21st April, 1936. 

Excavations at Lissard, Co. Limerick, and other Sites in the 
locality. By S^:an P. (3 Riordain, 26th May, 1936. 

St. Molaise’s House at Devenish, Co. Fermanagh, and its 
Sculptured Stones. By The Lady Dorothy Lowry-Corry, 
27th October, 1936. 

The Norman Burgh of Clonmel. By P. J. Lyons, Fellow, 
8th December, 1936. 

The Castle and Manor of Nenagh. By H. G. Leask, Fellow, 
and Dermot F. Gleeson, Member, 8th December, 1936. 



The following papers were taken as read : — 

Sheela-na-gigs in 1935. By Edith M. Guest, Member. 

The Ormond Freeholders of the Civil Survey. By Dermot F. 
Gleeson, Member. 

Notes 071 Irish Sandhills (continued). By Rev. L. M. Hewson. 

Local Place Names in the Castle Derg Dispensary District, Co. 
Tyrone. By George Gillespie, Fellow. 

The proceedings also included : — 

A Lantern Lecture on the places to be visited during the Summer 
Excursion in Limerick, by the Honorary General Secretary, 
20th July, 1936. 

A Lantern Lecture on the places to be visited during the Autumn 
Excursion, by Mr. Liam Price, 22nd September, 1936. 

A Lantern Lecture on Some Features of Irish Romanesque 
Architecture and the development of Castles in Ireland, by Mr. 
H. G. Leask, 27th October, 1936. 

On Wednesday, 7th October, and Tuesday, 13th October, 1936, 
Dr. R. a. S. Macalister broadcast two lectures from the Society’s 
House, Dubhn, being two lectures of a series entitled “ Here are 
our treasures.” 

On Wednesday, 2nd December, 1936, Dr. Peter Meyer of the 
Federal Technical University in Zurich, Switzerland, delivered a 
lecture at the Society’s House entitled ‘‘ Iro -Scottish Ornament 
and the Art of Medieval Europe.” 

The Council lent the Lecture Room of the Society to the Swiss 
Consulate on this occasion for Dr. Meyer’s lecture. 

The following nominations for President and Members of the 
Council for 1937 were duly received : — 

President : Professor John MacNeill, D.Litt., M.R.I.A. 

Members oe Council ; John J. Fitzgerald, M.D., Fellow ; Henry 
F. McCUntock, Felloiv ; Thomas H. Mason, M.R.I.A., Fellow. 

The Council have nominated Charles McNeill to be Honorary 
General Secretary and J. J. Buckley to be Honorary Treasurer. 

The foregoing nommations being in accordance with the Statutes 
and Bye-Laws, and not in excess of the several vacancies, the 
persons named are to be declared elected to the respective offices 
for which they have been proposed. 




Meetings of the Society will 1 
follows : — 

Tuesday, 2Gtli Jannary 

,, 2nd March 

,, 13th April 

„ 25th May 


„ 28th September 

„ 9th November 

„ 14th December 

During the year 1936 eleven M 
at which the attendances were 

T. P. Le Fanu, President • 7 

R. A. S. Macalister, Past 
President • • -8 

Lady Dorothy Lowry-Corry, 

Vice-President • • -2 

Earl of Dunraven, Vice- 
President • • • 0 

Charles McNeill, Vice- 
President • • *9 

The O’Conor Don, Vice- 
President • • • 0 

H. G. Lease, Fellow • • 8 

Marquis MacSwiney, Fellow 6 
B. St. G. Lefroy, Fellow • 4 

G. O’Brien, Felloiv • • 3 

* Died 17/ 
I Co-opted 
J Co-opted 

B held during the year 1937 as 

Ammal General Meetuig. 
Meeting for Papers. 

Quarterly Meeting. 

Meeting for Papers. 

Quarterly (Summer) Meeting, 
Quarterly Meetuig. 

Meeting for Papers. 

Statutory Meeting. 

letings of the Council were held, 

A. Farrington, Member • 5 

E. M. Stephens, Member • 10 
H. V. Crawfurth Smith, 
Fellow • 

*J. B. Loftus, Fellow 
tREV. M. V. Ronan, Felloiv 4 
Rev. J. Ryan, Fellow • 5 

Rev. J. L. Robinson, Felloiv 7 
J. Maher, Member • • 8 

JS. P. O’Riordain, Member 4 
J. E. FitzPatrick, Hon. 

General Secretary • • 6 

J. J. Buckley, Hon. Treas. 2 
L. Price, Hon. Editor • 9 





Excursions were made as follows : — 

1. 2nd May, 1936. — To Baltinglass, Clonmore Castle and Bally- 
volan. The party numbered forty-one. 

2. 21st-24th July, 1936. — The Annual Summer Excursion took 
place in the Provmce of Munster, Limerick being the centre. The 




follomng places were visited : — St. Mary’s Cathedral ; The Castle, 
Limerick; The Castle, Nenagh ; St. Flannan’s Cathedral ; Killaloe; 
Bunratty Castle ; Quinn Abbey ; Ennis Friary ; Dysert O’Dea ; 
Askeaton Castle and Friary ; Adare Castle and Priories ; Loch 
Gur Stone Circles ; the Site of the recent excavations at Cush ; 
Ivilmallock Dominican Friary ; and Manisteranenagh Abbey. 

The Rt. Revd. Dr. Patton, Bishop of Killaloe, very kindly 
entertained the party to tea at Clarisford, Killaloe, on 21st July. 
The party numbered sixty-three. 

The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Dunraven, Vice-President, very kindly 
entertained the party to tea at Adare on 23rd July. 

3. 3rd October, 1936. — To the Megalithic Burial Cam on Seefinn 
Mountain, Donode Mote and the Sillagh Ring. The party numbered 


During the year six Fellows and fifty -one Members joined the 
Society : — 

Felloivs : — Lady Daresbury ; Madam Yvonne Jammet ; Com- 
mander Donal B. O’Connell, R.N. (retd.) ; Dr. L. B. Somerville 
Large ; Professor John MacNeill (advanced from Membership). 

Members : — ^The Librarian, Pubhc Library, Kevin Street, Dubhn ; 
Mrs. Helen O’Malley ; Mrs. Dora Johnston ; Seamus Pender ; 
Maurice Tapissier ; William Scanlon ; Rev. Wilham Hawkes ; 
Professor M. F. Liddell ; Miss Const an tia Maxwell ; Cathal W. 
Gannon ; Dr. Mary F. Connolly ; Anthony Mac Bride ; Librarian, 
Clare County Library ; Denis K. Pyne ; Miss Jean Sheridan ; 
Miss Helen M. Roe ; Dr. Ethna Byrne ; Dom Bede Lebbe, Prior 
of Glenstal ; Wilham J. Wilkinson ; Rev. John Clancy, C.C. ; 
Commander H. Minchin, R.N. (retd.) ; Mrs. Sally FitzGerald 
Mobley ; Mrs. Phylhs Richardson ; The Countess of Erne ; Esmonde 
W. Little ; Rev. Edward Bradshaw ; Miss Mary Brereton ; Miss 
Teresa Doorley ; Seton Pringle ; Mrs. E. Butler-Stoney ; Michael 
J. MacCarthy ; Walter D. N. Buckeridge ; Francis Mac C. Cotter ; 
Rev. F. Harold Gilling ; Thomas Maguire ; Capt. Denis J. Lawlor ; 
Maurice J. de C. Dodd ; Miss Nessa Lyne ; Patrick J. Boland ; 
Librarian, Donegal County Library ; Rev. W. M. Atkins ; Mrs. 
Louisa Lloyd ; Thomas O’Donohue ; Miss Agatha O’Kane ; Denis. 
M. Ryan ; Ninian McI. Falkiner ; Mrs. Anne Thornton Bayhss ; 
Miss Ada K. Longfield ; Miss Brigid Redmond ; Michael F, 


The resignatio]\ of two Fellows and twenty-two Members were 

The names of the following Fellows and Members have been 
removed from the Roll under Rule 10. They may be restored to 
Fellowship and Membership on payment of the amonnt due : — 

Rt. Hon. Lord Castletown ; David T. Dwane ; Dudley Forde, 
M.D. ; Addison Hone ; Miss Antonia Lamb ; Rev. John F. Lavelle ; 
Miss Annie Mannion ; Padraig 0 Ceannabhain ; Rev. J. 
O’Connor ; IMrs. Kathleen K. Tysen. 

The deaths of nine Fellows and twelve Members were recorded : — 

H. M. King George V ; Professor A. F. Dixon ; Laurence 
Gavin, M.D. ; Rev. J. Flannagan ; Dr. Charles MacGarry ; 
W. R. L. Lowe ; Augustine Quinn ; Rev. Herman J. Heuser ; 
Philip Lawless ; M. Dore McAuliffe ; The Marquis of Lansdowne ; 
Dr. John IVIills ; Vice-Admiral B. T. Somerville ; Rev. M. Barry ; 
Major J. B. Loftus ; Howard S. Harrington ; Sir Osmond 
Esmonde ; John P. Dalton ; William F. Aitken ; The Hon. Hugh 
Kennedy ; Dr. A. A. Robb. 


John P. Dalton, M.A., M.R.I.A., at the time of his death was 
among the senior members of the Society, which he joined in 
1891. In 1918 he was promoted Fellow, and in the following 
year he was elected a member of the Council, upon which he served 
until 1926. As Inspector of Schools Mr. Dalton came in touch 
with local antiquities throughout a great part of Ireland, and 
acquired an exceptional acquaintance with topography and popular 
traditions. His chief contribution to archaeology^ was a study 
of ''Cromm Cruaich of Magli SleacM,” communicated to the Royal 
Irish Academy and published in its Proceedings for 1922, in which 
he drew on his varied stores to illustrate and amplify a subject 
of much interest through the connection traced with the district 
which Mr. Dalton has defined as the site of the worship of that 
famous idol. In later years his health restricted his archaeological 
labours, and he passed away on 14 October, 1936, at the age of 
77 years. 

Major John Edward Blake Loftus, D.L., M.R.I.A., died at 
his home on 17th July, 1936, in his 61st year. 

The second son of John Murphy, J.P., of Mount Loftus, County 
Kilkenny, he was descended through his grand mother from a branch 
of the historic family founded by Archbishop Adam Loftus ; and 



on succeeding to Mount Loftus he assumed by Deed Poll the surname 
of Loftus. After some years spent in the City of London, he settled 
at home. The new mansion which he erected close to the site of 
the old one in 1908, and in which he entertained the Members of 
this Society in 1926, was partly destroyed by an accidental fire in 
1934 : fortunately, various ancient documents and valuable pictures 
were saved. 

Major Loftus held a commission in the old ICilkenny Mihbia, later 
the 5th (Special Reserve) Battahon of the Royal Irish Regiment. 
Physical infirmity confined his activities in the War of 1914 to 
valuable work connected with the formation of the Machine Gun 

A man of wide reading, he was much interested in History and 
Antiquities, and had a special knowledge of Armour. He joined 
this Society as a Member in 1911, became a Fellow in 1930, was a 
Member of the Council 1928-1930, and again this year, and was a 
Vice-President in 1933-34-35. He was elected a Member of the 
Royal Irish Academy in 1918. 

He took an active part in local affairs as a member of the County 
Council and other bodies ; gave a home for many years to the 
Mount Loftus Harriers ; and by his uprightness, kindness, and 
great courtesy, gained the affectionate esteem of all sorts and 
conditions of men. 

Vice-Admiral Henry Boyle Townshend Somerville, C.M.G., 
who met his death at the hands of unknow^n assailants so tragically 
in March of this year, was elected a Fellow of the Society in 1909 
and served as Vice-President from 1933 to 1935. 

Born at Castletownshend in 1863, he received his education at 
the Royal Academy, Gosport. Passing to H.M.S. Brittania he 
entered the British Navy to serve with distinction until his retire- 
ment in 1919. His earliest sea service was on the coast of South 
America in 1880 (during the Chilean-Peruvian War) and in the 
first Egyptian War, 1882. Four years on the China Station was 
the prelude to tw^enty five years spent in Hydrographical Survey 
work in diverse areas from the Great Barrier Reef and the Ceylon 
Coast (the Percy Sladen Research Expedition) to British w^aters, 
up to the beginning of the Great European War. In it he com- 
manded in succession several ships of the North Atlantic Patrol 
and was Senior Naval Officer at Halifax of the Convoy service in 
1917. He subsequently served at the Admiralty and retired in 
1919, the recipient of the C.M.G. and an Officier de la legion 
d'Honneur. The Admiralty employed him at later periods in 
the Hydrographic Department and on the Tidal Committee in 1923, 


A service life of such activity might well be considered a sufficient 
excuse for a retirement spent in ease and idleness, but Admiral 
Somerville was not one to rest on his oars. A cultured gentleman 
of wide interests and one of a family of great literary ability, he 
devoted his later years to writing of the subjects he knew so well : 
the life of the sea, its explorers and map makers. His The 
Chart Makers ” appeared in 1928 to be followed in 1934 by “ Com- 
modore Anson’s World Voyages ” and those articles in Blackwood’s 
Magazine dealing with liis early experiences when assisting on 
the survey of the Great Barrier Reef, which are such engaging 
examples of lucid, straightforward writing. His last book “ Will 
Mariner ” is appearing posthumously. Not all of his leisure hours 
were given, however, to sea history or reminiscences ; a good 
proportion were spent in archaeological exploration, especially 
of megaliths, souterrains and similar structures in his native land. 
While many of his archaeological papers are to be found in Antiquity 
and the Journals of other societies, several of importance have 
appeared in this Journal. In Volumes 39 and 59 are two on Ancient 
Monuments near Lough SwiUy and in Volume 61 is a paper on 
Knockdrum Cathair, Co. Cork, his last contribution. 

He was an accomplished surveyor and careful observer, and if 
the theories as to the orientation of megaliths which he held are 
not universally accepted, his investigations have resulted in pre- 
sentations of an accuracy too often absent from the surveys of 
many writers on these subjects. 

Through the death of one, who despite his years, w as stiU very 
active both in mind and body, Irish archaeology has suffered a 
severe loss. 

Charles J. Mac Garry, LL.D., was born on the 1 1th November, 
1877. His death on the 17th of January of this year w^as a shock 
to his friends and especially to his colleagues of this Society and 
of the Public Record Office in which he had spent all the years of 
his official service. Dr. MacGarry was educated at Belvedere 
College and University College, Dublin, and he entered the Pubhc 
Record Office in 1901 through the Civil Service Class I Examination. 
In 1921 he was appointed one of the Assistant Keepers of the 
Records. On the destruction of the Record Office in 1922, the 
staff was in great measure dispersed, some retired, some were 
transferred to other departments of the Saorstat service and others 
went to serve in Northern Ireland. Dr. MacGarry was one of the 
skeleton staff which remained in the Record Office to carry out the 
tedious and difficult operation of sorting out the salvage recovered 
from the ruins and to build up again a Record Office collection, 














The Council wish it to be distinctly understood that they do not 
hold themselves responsible for the statements and opinions 
contained in the Papers read at the Meetings of the Society, and 
here printed, except so far as No. 31 of the General Hides (1924) 
of the Society extends. 


The paper in this number of the Journal which conies first in 
order of time is the report of an excavation carried out by the 
Harvard Archaeological Expedition in the Co. Antrim raised 
beach. Mr. Movius, in discussing the cultural affinities of the 
site, comes to the conclusion that the Mesolithic culture wliich was 
found in the beach deposit has a close relationship with tlie Meso- 
lithic of South-western Scotland, and that both places were refuge 
areas where the Upper Palaeolithic tradition survived down to a 
comparatively late period, perhaps the fourth millennium B.C. 
It was Mr. C. Blake Whelan, M.R.T.A., who hrst called attention 
to the Mesolithic culture in Antrim and Down, and the investiga- 
tions which followed have led the way to new discoveries in other 
parts of Ireland concerning this early prehistoric period. 

Lady Dorothy LoWry-Corry and Mrs. Richardson have under- 
taken a survey of the rather inaccessible area of Counties Cavan 
and Fermanagh which lies south of Lough MacNean. This 
Blacklion district contains a number of important megalithic 
remains, some of which have been described by Borlase in his 
“ Dolmens of Ireland ” they are all described here with measure- 
ments, plans and photographs. Mr. Oliver Davies publishes a 
report of the excavation of a megalith in Co. Tyrone, and Mr. 
Leask gives a short description of the Punches town stone recently 
re-erected by the Board of Works. In the course of carrying out 
the Work Mr. Leask found a cist at the foot of this pillar stone, 
from which we may conclude that it was originally set up at the same 
period and for the same purpose as the well known pillar stone 
at Furness, Co. Kildare, which was examined in 1912. A scattered 
group of piUar stones which resemble these two in appearance 
runs as far south as Ardristan in Co. Carlow. 

Another important discovery in Irish prehistory is Mr. Hemp’s 
demonstration that St. Kevin’s Bed at Glendalough was originally 
a rock-cut tomb of the Brorrze Age. It is possible that the existerrce 
of the prehistoric tomb may have giverr rise to the faint traditiorrs 
about a witch, that appear irr both the Latin and the Irish lives 
of the Saint. The fact that St, Kevin used the torrrb as a shelter 
need not surprise us ; other instances of prehistoric tombs being 
used as dwelling places are known from the early centuries of the 
Christian era. 

Papers by Dr. Macalister arrd MUe. F. Herrry deal with irrscribed 
piUar stones of the early Christiair period, Dr. Macalister’s paper 
corrtainirrg also notes on some Oghanr inscriptiorrs. Mr. Morris 
publishes two x)apers, one on the Partholon legend, the other 
showing where the peox)le called Fir Chualann were located at this 
early period. The later mediaeval period is the subject of several 
papers : Dr. Curtis on Mediaeval Seals, the Revd. M. V. Ronan 



oil some unpublished Mediaeval documents, Mr. Lyons on a Norman 
burgh, Dr. Guest on Slieela-na-gigs, some of which at least must 
be related to this period ; Mr. Gleeson on the Silver Mines of Co. 
Tipperary, and ]\lr. Eamonn 6 Tuathail on Place Names. Mr. 
Leask describes a small sixteenth century Castle in Co. Kilkenny 
with plans and sections which show with remarkable completeness 
the construction of a fortihed dwelling in Ireland at this period. 

This number contains three papers dealing with the history 
of the period from 1680-1 SCO. Mr. Hugh Law gives us some 
hitherto unpublished details of the life of Sir Charles Wogan, 
the romantic hgure vho is iiest known as the rescuer of James 
Stuart’s bride from her place of captivity at Innsbruck in 1710. 
The Irish linen-printing industry is the subject of an exhaustive 
study by Miss Longheld : she shows how the manufacture, mostly 
in the neighbourhood of Dublin, was established by means of 
Government aid, and b}^ prizes and grants more particularly 
from the Dubhn Society. We have an important document 
relating to 1798 in the Brief for the Defence of the Brothers Sheares ; 
the existence of the brief came to the knowledge of the Revd. K. 
R. Brady, who realised its importance and got a copy made for 
publication in full. While the facts of the Sheares trial are already 
well known, the brief makes the whole action of the few weeks 
before John and Henry Sheares were arrested come alive before us, 
giving us a view of historical events which we are seldom fortunate 
enough to get. 

Two papers in this number, the survey of the Blacldion megahths, 
and to a lesser degree the description of an Anglo-Norman burgh 
in Co. Tipperary, may be used as a text for a few general remarks. 
They are both descriptions of existing structures visible on the 
ground within a fairly small area, giving plans and measurements. 
The country is full of unrecorded monuments of all kinds, dating 
from early prehistoric to late mediaeval times ; and we want more 
knowledge of these monuments. book reviewed in Part II of 
this Journal, Srdid an Mhuilinn, consists of a survey made on 
much the same plan, though in a less detailed w^ay. Anyone 
who notes down and publishes detailed particulars of all the monu- 
ments — or even all those of one particular kind — in a definite 
district, the boundaries of which are given, is doing a useful piece 
of historical work. Helj) is always available on technical points ; 
and the most useful work has been done by those who are most 
humble-minded about their own efforts. The Editor appeals to 
readers to whom anticpiarian matters are of interest to take some 
such piece of work in hand, and to submit the results to tlie Council 
of this Society, or of one of the local Antiquarian Societies, with 
a view to publication. 



The Brief for the Defence at 
the Trial of John and Henry 
Sheares in 1798, by Revd. 
K, R. Brady 



History of the Irish Linen and 
Cotton Printing Industry 
in the 18th Century, by 
Ada K. Longfield 


The Fartholon Legend, by 
Henry IMorris . 

57-7 1 

Some Further Medie\al Seals 
out of the Ormond Archives, 
including that of Donal 
Reagh McMurrough 

Kavanagh, King of Leinster, 
by Edmond Curtis 

7:1-7 () 

Notes on some Irish Place 
Names, by Eamonn 

0 Tuathail 


Excavations at Ballyrenan, Co. 
Tyrone, by 0. Davies 

89- KM) 

The Silver iMines of Ormond, 
by Dermot CUeeson 

101-1 1() 

i\Iegalithic Monuments in the 
Parishes of Killinagh, Co. 
Cavan, and Killesher, Co. 
Eermanagh, by Dorothy 
Lowry-Corry and Phyllis 


Some Notes on the Dating of 
Sheela-na-gigs, by Edith M. 
Oucst .... 


A Stone Age Site at Olenarm, 
Co. Antrim, by Hallam L. 
Movius, Jr. 


The Ogham Inscri])tions at 
Kilfountain and Ballymore- 
reigh (St. Manchan’s) in the 
Dingle Peninsula, by R. A. S. 


Some Mediaeval Documents, 
by Rev. Myles V. Ronan . 


Norman Antiquities at Lis- 
ronagh, Co. Ti])])erary, by 
Patrick Lyons .. 


The Long Stone, Punches- 
town, C^o. Kildare, by H. 0. 
Leask .... 


( V ) 

Sir Charles Wogan, by Hugh 

A. Law .... 



Early Christian Slal)s and rillar 
Stones in the W'est of Ire- 
land, ljy Eranooise Homy . 


Ancient Cualu ; ^Vhere was it ? 
by Henry Morris 


Clara Castle, Co. Kilkennv, bv 
H. 0. Leask . . ^ 



The Ballylongford Crucifix, by 
J. J. Buckley . 


Excaivations in Co. Tyrone : 
( lady Halliday 


Dun Ruadh . 






Island IMacHugh 


Observations on Kilgreany 
(^ave, Co. Waterford, by 
E. K. Tratman . 


Clonmel Antiquities 


Three-ringed Eort at Clona- 
cody, Co. Tipi)erary . 


Eind of Skulls in Goldenfort, 
Co. WickloAV 


She('la-na-gig at Kilmacomma, 
C'o. Waterford, l>y Patrick 
liyons .... 


Sheela-na-gig, Clenagli Castle, 
Co. Clare .... 


Coin Hoard in Co. Clare 


The Circuit of Muirchertach, 
by H. C. Lawlor 


Hanging Bowls, by Erancois 
Henry .... 


Callans at Bariyshall, Co. Cork 


Easter (Cycles in the Irish 
Church .... 


Togail Bruidne da Derga 


St. Kevin’s Bed, Olendalough, 
by Mb J. Hem]) 


Ancient Sculptured (boss P>ase 
at Seirkieran, OITaly, by 
E. Harold Clilling 





Double Cist M'itli Cremations, 

1 roiimills, Co. Laoighis, by 
Helen IM. Koe . . . 2{)5 

Sixteenth Century Stone at 

Ballycoiinor, Co. Wexford . 298 

Clontygora Cam, Co. Armagh oOl 

Cairn at Corracloona, Co. Fer- 
managh, by Dbrothy Lowry- 
Corry .... :i()2 

Cross-Slab at Inch, Co. Kerry, 

by Donal B. O’Connell . .‘lO.’l 

Coblet of St. Lorcan Ua Tuat- 
hail, Archbishoj) of Dublin, 
11(51-1180, by Bev. M. V. 

Ronan .... 304 

Ra 2 )hoe Round ToA\er . . 304 

Aveburv A]) 2 )eal . . . 30,“) 

An Advertisement of 1(578 . .305 

A Ralieeii at Killcagh, Co. 

W'icklow, by Rev. ,J. L. 

Robinson .... 305 

Figure in Lismore Cathedral, 

by Franooise Henry . . 30G 

Location of the District of Fid 

^lar, by Eoin MacXeill . 307 

Flint Scraper from Co. AVick- 

low, by 0. F. Mitchell . 307 

Urn Avith Cremation found at 
Killabeg, Co. Wicklow, by 
F. T. Riley . . . 308 

Celtic Chronolog}’, by .John R. 

AVade . " . . . 310 

A Circular Stone Fort in Co. 

Wexfoi'd . . . . 311 

Two Carved Stones in the See- 
linn Cam, by R. A. S. Mac- 
alister . . . . 313 


The Irish Countryman, by 

Conrad AI. Arensberg . 133 

The 5(5th and 57th Re 2 )orts of 
the De])uty KeejAer of the 
Public Records and Kee])er 
of the State Pa 2 )ers in Ire- 
land . . . . 134 


Commentarius Rinuccinianus : 

AMI. 11 ... . 13(5 

The Register of the Hos])ital 
of St. .John the Baptist 
Avithout the Ncav Cate, Dub- 
lin, edited by E. St. .John 
Brooks . . . . 138 

The Islands of Ireland, by 

Thomas H. Alason . . 138 

The Parish of DcA'enish, County 
Fermanagh, by Rev. AVilliam 
B. Steele .... 139 

Etudes Celtiques ; No. 1, -June, 

193(5 . . . . 140 

(Jlanerought and the Petty- 
Fitzmaurices, by the (late) 

Alarquis of LansdoAA'iie . 3 I 4 

Genealogiae Reguin et Sanc- 
torum Hiberniae by the Four 
Afasters, edited by Rpa". Paul 
AValsh .... 315 

The (JauI Survey A.D. 1054— 

1056. ('Ounties of Donegal, 
Londonderry and Tyrone, 
edited by Robert C. Siming- 
ton ..... 310 

’The Personal Names of the Isle 

of Alan, by J. .1. Kneen . 317 

Laimh-leabhar Bealoideasa : 

Sean (3 Suilleabhain do chuir 

le cheile . . . . 318 

Sraid an Alhuilinn : a History 
of its Peo})le, by its Peoj)le, 
for its Peo})le, by Timothy 
Broker .... 319 

Public Record Office of 
Northern Ireland ; Report 
for the Year 1935 of the 
Kee])er of the Records . 319 

Proceedings .... 142, 321 

Rei)ort of Council for 1930 . 144 

Statement of Accounts, 1930 . 154 





Portrait of Eoin MacNeill, D.Iitt., 

President, 1937 . 1 

Chasuble, block-printed in black. 

Italian, late 15tli centniy. For 
use in time of jdague . . 26 

Linen and Cotton printed in blue 

from wood-blocks. French, 

3 ouy, late 18th century •• . 27 

Cotton, printed in red from 
cop])er-plates at Old Ford, near 
London, in 1761 . . . 28 

“ N'olunteer Furniture,” represent- 
ing the provincial review in the 
Phoenix Park, May 1783 . 44 

FIngraving piinted on silk, by 
W. N. Gardiner, a ])upil of the 
Dublin Society’s Art School . 49 

Cotton, printed in red from co])])er- 
]dates. English, late 18th 
century .... 49 

Seal of the Bishop of Ossory, 1227 72 

Seal of the Chapter of St. Canice’s 

Cathedral . . . . 72 

Seals of the Abbots of Duiske and 

Jerpoint, 1288 ... 72 

Seal of the Prior of Holy Cross, 

1414 . . . . . 73 

Seal of the Archbishop of Cashel, 

1429 73 

Seal of the Dean and Chapter of 

Leighlin, 1442 ... 73 

Seal of the Abbey of Jerpoint, 

1501-2 . . ‘ . . . 73 

Seals of Thomastown and Knock- 

to])her, 1446 .... 74 

Seal of Holy Cross Abbe}^, 1534 . 74 

Seal of the Bishop of Leighlin, 1558 74 

Seal of the Vicars Choral of St. 

Canice’s Cathedral, 1575 . . 76 

Seal of the Schewer or Chevir 

family, 1498 . . . . 76 

(Seal of Donal Reagh Mao Murrough 
Kavanagh, King of Leinster, 

1475 . . . . . 76 

Ballyrenan Cloghogle : 

General view from South-west 92 

Back Chambers : South side 92 

The Ballylongford Crucifix . . 117 

Gallans, Barryshall, Co. Cork . 130 



Hanging Bowl, Fortwilliam 

Museum .... 130 

Hanging Bowl, Leiden, Holland . 131 

Handle of Leiden Bowl . . 131 

Port, Co. Cavan : Cashel Wall . 155 

Killycarney Cairn : Forecourt . 155 

Termon, near Blaoklion ; Bullaun 

Stones . . . . .162 

Moneygashel Cashel, Co. Cavan . 162 

Moneygashel Dolmen : Capstone 

ami Portal Stone ... 1 65 

Burren, Co. C-avan : Dolmen in 

Cairn .....] 65 
Burren Dolmen : Capstone, S.W. 

and N.E. sides . . . 167 

Burren Round Cairn . . . 167 

Burren : first Wedge-shaj)ed Grave 170 
Burren: 2nd AVedge-shaped Grave: 

Ante-Chamber . . . 170 

West Portal . . . 170 

Legalpugh Round Cairn : Horned 

Forecourt . . . .173 

Garvagh Cairn : Oval Chamber . 173 

Mullaghboy : White Cam . . 173 

Glenarm, Co. Antrim : 

General View of Site : Com- 
mencement of Excavation . 181 

Excavation in progress, showing 

Pits A — D . . . . 181 

The U])per End of the Raised 
Beach above the Flrosion 
Scar]) . . . .187 

Inclined Beds on the Modern 

Pebble Beach . . .187 

Pit A, with Ke}" to the Strati- 
graphy . . . .188 

Kilfountain Inscribed Stone . 221 

Punchestown Long Stone after 

Fixcavation of Cist . . . 250 

Punchestown Long Stone from 

S.AV. as re -erected . . . 250 

F]arly Christian Slabs and Pillar- 
Stones : 

Faha, Co. Kerry : west side . 265 

Dunfeeny, Co. Mayo . . 265 

Arraglen C^o Kerry : Cross with 

Chi-Rho, and Cross in circle . 265 

lieao na Rea, Kilvickadownig, 

Co. Kerry .... 267 

Maumanorig, Co. Kerry . . 267 

( vii ) 





Knookane, Co. Kerry . . 207 

Kilsliannio', Co. Kerr\' . . 2 (57 

'rarmon, Co. Mayo . . . 2(58 

Comval, C^o. J)oncgal : east and 

west Pillars . . . 208 

Kilcummin, Co. INfayo . . 208 

Inishkea North, Co. Mayo, 271, 274, 270 
Bruckless, (M. Donegal . . 271 

Ballyvourney, Co. Cork . . 271 

Duvillaun ]\Iore, Co. Mayo . 272 

Re ask, Co. Kerry . . . 272 

1 tiishkea 8outh, (to. Mayo . 272 

Killaohtee, ('o. Donegal . .' 274 



Faha, Co. Kerry : east side . 270 

Kilinore Erris, Co. Mayo . . 270 

Bally wiheen, (‘o. Kerry . . 278 

Ch’oss-inscribed Pillar stone, Hil- 
lard Farm, CornA\ all . . 278 

Cross Rase at Seirkieran : east and 

north faces . . . .294 

(Vairn at Forracloona, Co. keitrim : 

North Horn, Dry M" ailing and 

Slab closing entrance . . 202 

Entrance Slab Avith Porthole . 202 

Porthole .... 202 

Figure in Lismore Cathedral . 207 



Map showing location of 


yards near Dublin . 


Inis Sameir 


Ma]) of liallyshannon District 


Rallyrenan Cloghogle : Plan to fare 


Rallvrenan : Hints, i)otterv and 



Rallvivnan (loohos^le : Sections 

to face 

1 00 

'I'he Silver Mines in 1(581 


i\ra]) showing Megalithic 


ments in the Parishes 


Killinagh and Killesher 


Port, Co. Cavan : single-chambered 

grave and cashel wall 


Killyoarney, Co. Cavan : 


chamber of cairn 


]\[oneygashel, Co. Cavan : 


in cairn 

1 (55 

Rurren, (’o. Cavan : 

Dolmen in cairn 




\V’edge-sha])ed cairn 


Wedge-shaped cairn 


Legalough, Co. Cavan : 


shaped cairn . 


Olenarm, Co. Antrim : 

Section . 

to face 




Tm])lements from the 


Reach (Olenarm 1 ) 192, 

192, 195 

, 197 

Im]dements from the Humus 
(Olenarm 2) . 199, 201 , 202, 20.’), 207 

Contour maj) of Olenarm and 

vicinity . . . .218 


Inscribed stones at Kilfountain 

ane Rallymorereigh, Co. Kerry 222 
Lisronagh, Co. Ti])perary : 

Map of site .... 242 

Section of Mote . . . 244 

The Rurgh .... 24(5 

The Long Stone, Punchestown : 

])lan and section of Pillai- and 

Cist . . . to face 2~>2 

Kilmore Moy (4-oss . . . 2(58 

Kilmore Erris ; ])lan of Cashel . 2(59 

Duvillaun More : 

Plan of Cashel . . .271 

Plan of Reehive huts and Cashel 272 

Inishkea North : Cross slab . 27-1 

Kilshannig : Cross with Chi-Rho . 274 

Knockane : remains of Cists, and 

cross-inscribed Roulder . . 277 

Clara Castle, Co. Kilkenny . . 28.7 

Plan . . . to fare 285 

Elevations and Sections to fare 288 

St. Kevin’s Red, Olendalough : 

Plan and section . . . 291 

Position in relation to the lake 292 

Stnall Cross, Seirkieran . . 295 

Plan of Cist at Ironmills, Co. 

Laoighis .... 29b 

Ironmills Cist from South-west . 297 

Stafford Crest, 1570 . . . 299 

Rallygahan U])])er, Co. AVicklow ; 

section of raheen . . . 200 

Carryknock flint scra])cr . . 208 

Urn from Killabeg, Co. WickloAv . 209 

Seefin C-arn : carved stones . 212 



His extensive knowledge of the Records proved of the greatest 
service in this task. As the Record Commissioners’ Manuscript 
Translation of the unpublished Statutes of Edward IV, Richard III 
and Henry VII perished in 1922, Dr. MacGarry made a fresh 
translation with a view to the completion of the Edition of the 
Early Statutes of Ireland, Volumes I to III of which were edited 
by the late Dr. Twiss. Shortly before his untimely death he had 
begun an English Calendar of the Tipperary Inquisitions from the 
Record Commissioners’ Latin Transcripts of those Inquisitions. 

Having joined the Society as a Member in 1916 he was promoted 
a Fellow in 1920. He took an active interest in the affairs of the 
Society and served on the Council for the years 1930, 1931 and 
1932, as well as assisting in the editing of the Journal. 

The losses to the Society by deaths and resignations amounted to 
45, the number removed from the Roll under Rule 10 amounted 
to 11, and the accessions amounted to 57. 

The number of Fellows and Members now on the Roll is 683, 

distributed as follows : — 

Honorary Fellows ... ... ... 7 

Life Fellows ... ... ... ... 38 

Fellows ... ... ... ... 134 

Life Members ... ... ... 35 

Members ... ... ... ... 467 

Associate Members ... ... ... 2 


The total receipts from all sources during the year 1936 amounted 
to £1,287 7s. 7d., being subscription revenue, £635 Os. 4d., rents, 
sale of books, excursions and miscellaneous receipts, £652 7s. 3d. 

The total expenditure amounted to £1,204 15s. lOd., as follows : — 

Printing and illustrating Journal, Part II, 1935, and Part I, 1936, 
£509 3s. lOd. ; rents, salaries, stationery, excursions and general 
expenses, £695 12s. Od. Liabilities £77 11s. 2d. 

The Society holds investments of £400 in Irish Free State 2nd 
National Loan, £100 in Irish Free State 4th National Loan, and 
£200 Irish Free State Post Office Saving Certificates. 



[In addition to the current periodicals). 

The following books were received by the Society ; — ■ 

“ Tresse Iron Age Megalithic Monument.” From V. C. C. Colliim. 
‘‘ Church and State in Tudor Times.” From R. D. Edwards. 
Prehistoric Man in Ireland,” C. P. Marthi. From Dr. R. A. S. 

“ Un Livre d’heures, MSS., a I’Usage de Macon.” From L’Abbe 
V. Leroquais. 

‘‘ Ancient Funeral Monuments of Gt. Britam.” From E. O’Toole. 

“ A Statement of Facts relating to the Irish Estates of the City 
of London.” 

“ Companies in Ulster.” W. M. Jellett, K.C. 

“ Heimskingle,” Erling Monsen. From IVIiss G. Stackpoole. 

“ Historical Researches,” Heeren’s. J. R. Wade. 

“ Huguenots Settlements in Ireland,” Grace L. Lee. From 
T. P. Le Fanu. 

“ Irish Monasticism,” Rev. J. Ryan, S.J. From the Author. 

“ Index to the Papers of T. J. Westropp,” Mrs. M. Kennedy. 
From the Author. 

‘‘ The Plantation of Ulster,” Hill. Purchased. 

“ Felszeichrungen im Westlichen Norwegen.” From Dr. 

“ Biographical Succession Lists of Down Diocese,” Leslie and 
Swanzy. From Rev. Chancellor Leslie. 

“ Ferns Clergy and Parishes,” Rev. J. B. Leslie. From Rev. 
Chancellor Leslie. 

‘‘ Notes and Queries,” Jan.-June, 1936. From Dr. H. C. Drury. 
‘‘ Irish Monastic and Episcopal Deeds,” A.D. 1200-1600, ed. 
Newport B. White. From Irish MSS. Commission. 

“ Letters and Papers relating to the Irish Rebellion,” 1642-66, 
ed. James Hogan. From Irish MSS. Commission. 

“ Ministers’ Accounts for West Wales, 1277-1306,” Myvanwy 

“ Memoir of the Medals and MedaUsts connected with Ireland,” 
Dawson. From Mrs. E. J. French. 



View of the Coinage of Ireland,” Lindsay. From Mrs. E. J. 

MSS. Book : List of Irish Coins. From Mrs. E. J. French. 

The Islands of Ireland.” From Thomas H. Mason. 

Other Gifts. 

Seven lantern slides. From C. P. Curran. 

Thirteen lantern slides. From Lady Dorothy Lowry-Corry. 

Set of Speed’s Maps. From Mrs. E. J. French. 

Ordnance Survey Map of Aran Island, 1854. From Mrs. E. J. 

Map : The Barony of Rathdown. From Mrs. E. J. French. 
Map : Dublin Bay in 1795. From Mrs. E. J. French. 

Map : Dublin in 1610. From Mrs. E. J. French. 

Sinex Map, 1712. From B. St. G. Lefroy. 

Rocque’s Map of Ireland. From B. St. G. Lefroy. 

Two drawings, Van de Veit. From J. J. Burke. 


Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland —Statement of Accounts for 1936 

005I>a3QO— CDOO 

07 0 




CO t4 00 1© 00 Ot 33 

01 0 1 

10 2^ 



03 0 



0 03 ^ <M U5 0 — 1 


CD 0 00 

CD 0 1 

oi 1 

0 0 

-ft 00 













C ft 

g S. 


® o 




't3 W) 
© CS ClH 


O ift" O 

^ pLn 

o -r 

• E- 







§ S 

•2 c a 

ft ® i§ 

3 +3 W ^ 43 

. 03 


bD cc 
•ft © 

_ <33 

C3 ft 


C5 Eh 


1 g £ 


’ CO 





■ ft 


o o c; 00 
lO o o 
O -ft o o 


O! V 

t>c 2 


•43^ . 

cc © , — I 

- © © © 

M -ft o 



M ft "© 



02 ® 43> 
T! 73 _© © 

© 3 _Q ^ 

X ft r2 3 <§ Is 


■N « Is'^o 
1 1 |l rs w 

1^ o ^ © 





3 © 
© 2 


.2 o 

ft 74 i«; O ^ © 

02 S W P-I o Ph 






2 $ 


^ © 


03 -2 

o > 
_ ft 

O ^ 

-ft O t> CO 
O O -H (M 



CD I— I r— I 

0 -ft 


0 00 



<33 00 

0 0 CO 0 

-ft 3 



1 — 1 — rH 

<-H — H , 

0 —< 

0 10 CD 0 

0 0 



f" iO 

1— 1 CO 

CO 07 10 


ft 'ft ' c3 

2 3 3 

ft 00 

ft Eh ’-+3 ’-p 

© Eh4^^S2^ XX 

+=‘^PhOii2eh^ ft4J 

1^1 07'-t^- 

3 ©I go :^' 

03® 00 

• 3 ^ ^ g • ^.2^ . 0-0. 

? I .S.2.| 111 ^ ^ 

^ ft '® 3 c c 

0 • § O . . 0 . 0 . 

©io-3^-- --0 •St*H'S© 3^35 

|S| “ ^l°»S IJIJ 

1 ■= S |«|S§ .2^.S’^ 

fp^ i-lpHHa2Ha2QO 

>. - 


-3 . 43 






. 'E 

T3 ^ 

^ "3 
. 0 

03 O 

o § 

' CO 

The Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 

Hon. Local 


A rmagh 

Belfast City 





,, City 
Down, North • 

,, South • 

„ City 





Mayo, North • 

,, South • 






Tipperary, South 

„ North 
W atcrford 

„ City 

Wexford, North 
,, South 

W icklovj, \\est 
,, East 


H. C. Lawlor, m.r.i.a. 

Thomas E, Reid, m.b.e. 

H. C. Lawlor, m.r.i.a. 

Edward O’Toole. 


Dermot E. Gleesox, d.j. 

V. Rev. Patrick Canon Power, 


Rev. J. Cunningham, c.c. 

Robert S. Lepper. 

Colonel R. G. Berry, m.r.i.a. 

E. M. Stephens. 

Thomas H. Mason. 

Lady Dorothy Lowry Corry. 

T. B. Costello, m.d., m.r.i.a. 

Bryan McMahon Coffey, m.d. 

The Rev. Laurence J. Stafford, p.p. 

W. E. J. Dobbs. 

H. J. B. Clements, d.l., m.r.i.a. 


Maurice M. McCausland, d.l. 

John E. Keenan, m.d. 

Henry E. McClintock. 

James M. Dillon. 

Very Rev. T. .1. Reidy, p.p. 

Ven. Archdeacon Healy, ll.d. 

S. A. D’Arcy, l.r.c.p.i. 

John R. Wade. 

The O’Conor Don. 

Henry Morris. 

Ven. Archdeacon St. John Seymour, 
LTTT.D., m.r.i.a. 

Capt. George Whitfield. 

Mrs. C. B. M. Chambr6. 

Beverley G. Ussher. 

V. Rev. Patrick Canon Power, 

H. A. S. Upton. 

G. E. J. Greene,, m.r.i.a., f.l.s. 
Miss Kathleen A. Browne. 

Liam Price, d.j. 

Francis E. Stephens. 

I The Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 

This Society, instituted to preserve, examine, and illustrate the Ancient Monuments j 
of the History, Language, Arts, Manners and Customs of tlie past as connected witli j 
Ireland, was founded as the Kilkenny Archaeological Society in 1849. On 27th December, 
1869, Queen Victoria was graciously pleased to order that it be called The Royal [ 
Historical and Archaeological Association of Ireland, and was further pleased to 
sanction the adoption of the title of The Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland on 
the 2oth March, 1890. The Society was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1912. 

General Meetings of the Society are held each year, in Dublin or elsewhere in Ireland, 
at which Papers on Historical and Archaeological subjects are read. Fellows and Members 
elected, objects of Antiquity exhibited, and excursions made to places of antiquarian 
interest. The Council meets monthly in Dublin. Honorary, Provincial and Local Secretaries 
are appointed, whose duty it is to inform the Secretary of discoveries of Antiquarian 
Remains in their districts, to investigate Local Hjstory and Traditions, and to give notice 
of all injury, likely to be inflicted on Monuments of Antiquity and Ancient Memorials 
of the Dead, 1 ti orcler that the influence of the Society may be exerted t'o preserve them. 

The Publications of the Society comprise the Half-yearly Journal and the “ Extra 
Volume ” Series. The “ Antiquarian Handbook ” Series was begun in 1895, and seven 
j handbooks have been published. 

: The Journal, from the year 1849 onwards contains a great mass of information on the 

1 History and Antiquities of Ireland, with thousands of Illustrations. Sixty-six volumes 
! have been issued. 

I The following “ Extra Volumes,” which were supplied free to all Fellows on the roll 
I at date of issue, may still be obtained : — 

1874 — Christian Inscriptions in the Irish Language.” Edited by Miss M. Stokes. 

! (With Illustrations and Plates.) Two Vols. Cloth, £2 10 0. 

1891 The Account Roll of the Priory of the Holy Trinity, Dublin, 1337-1346, with 
j the Middle-English Moral Play, The Pride of LifeP Edited by James Mills, 

I M.R.i.A. (With facsimile of original MS.) In sheets, folded, 7s, 6d. 

I 1892 — “Antiquarian Remains of the Island of Innismurray.” By W. F. Wakeman, 

Hon. F.R.s.A. (With Map and 84 Illustrations.) In sheets, folded, 5s, 

1897- The Register of the Diocese of Dublin in the times of Archbishop Tregury and 
Walton, A.D. 1467-1483.” Edited by H. F. Berry, m.a. Paper, lOs. 
i 1901— “ The Index to the First Nineteen Volumes of the Journal for the years 

! 1849-1889, inclusive.” Complete in Three Parts, Paper, 10s. 6d. 

1908 — “ Memorial Slabs of Clonmacnois.” By R, A, Stewart Macalister, ll.d., 
F.S.A., M.R.i.A. (With Illustrations.) Cloth, 10s. 

1915 — “Index to the Journal, Vols. XXI. -XL., 1890-1 — ^1910.” By General Stubb.s 

and W. CottFr Stubbs, m.r.i.a. Paper, 10s. 6d. ; Cloth, 12s. Od. 

1916- — “The Gormanston Register.” Edited by James Mills, t.s.o., m.r.i.a., 

and M. J. ]\I‘Enery, m.r.i.a. -Cloth, 10s. 

1923 — “ Advertisements for Ireland,” being a description of Ireiiwid- in the reign of 
James I., contained in a manuscript in Trinity College, Dublin. Edited by 
Geo. O’Brien, litt.l. Price 6s. 

1926 — “Carved Ornament from Irish Monuments.” By H. S. Crawford, im.r.t.a.. 
Published by Subscription 15s, ; to fellows 12s. 

1930 — Court Book of the Liberty of St. Sepulchre.” Edited by Herbert 
I Wood, b.a., m.r.i.a., Fellou\ Price 7s. 6d. ; to members 5s, 

1933 — “Index Id the Journal, Vols. XLI to LX, 1911 to 1930.” Pqjier, 10s. 6d. : 
Cloth, 13s. 

The following of the Society’s Handbooks and Guides can also be had : — 

' Islands and Coasts of Ireland (in Buckram) 3^.^ J6d. 

I Antiquities of Limerick ami Neighbourhood (in cloth) 4s. 6d. 

Killarney, Waterford, Isle of Man, Athlone Is. each. 

Durrow and Rahan, King’s Co. (in one) 6d. 

Hanging Bowls. By Franooise Henry. Price 2s. 6d. 

Annual Subscription — Members, £1 ; Fellows, £2. 

Papers intended to be printed in the Journal are required to be submitted by Contributors 

in type-written form. 

Falconer, Printer and Publisher, Dublin.